Improving Justice,Equity,Diversity,and Inclusion in Research on Sexual Abuse Perpetration

Abstract

Keywords

Justice Equity Diversity Inclusion Racism Sexism Behavioral Science Sexual Violence Sexual Offending

In this editorial, we describe our recommendations for how Sexual Abuse can improve justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) in the scholarship that is published in these pages. This editorial grew out of a process of consultation between Editorial Board members, the first author, Michael Seto (Editor in Chief; EIC), and other stakeholders. During this process, we agreed to provide context regarding the need for JEDI-related initiatives by journal editorial boards as well as our non-binding recommendations for the journal—our aspirational list of changes that we believe would advance the science and practice of our field through elevating the research conducted by a diverse group of scientists and research conducted with diverse populations.

We want to acknowledge our positionality from the outset of this endeavor. We do not speak for the Editorial Board nor for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). We are speaking for ourselves, and our identities shape our work, including the content of this editorial.

Amanda Fanniff: I am a White, cisgender¹, heterosexual, able-bodied woman raised in a middle-class suburban family who is now a tenured Associate Professor. These identities have shaped my worldview and opportunities—there were doors that were readily open for me to walk through as I advanced to college, graduate school, and through my career. There are many explanations of racism that have impacted my thinking, among the top being Dr Camara Phyllis Jones’s work (e.g., Jones, 2018) and the following less-cited (in the world of psychology research) from the writer Scott Woods (2014): “Racism … is so insidious that it doesn’t care if you are a white person who likes black people; it’s still going to find a way to infect how you deal with people who don’t look like you. ...It’s a set of socioeconomic traps and cultural values that are fired up every time we interact with the world. It is a thing you have to keep scooping out of the boat of your life to keep from drowning in it.” I strive to be anti-racist and culturally humble in my research, teaching, and service, but I recognize that I have in the past and will continue to make mistakes. I will fail to see important information or misinterpret it because of my experiences and privileges. I am motivated to continue to learn and continue to grow; involvement in initiatives like these provide such an opportunity and I see them as a way to hold myself accountable - I have to try to live up to the aspirations I commit to the page.

Apryl Alexander: I am a Black, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied woman raised by two parents, who were enlisted in the military (now retired), in middle-class suburban neighborhood, who is now a tenured Associate Professor in forensic psychology. I successfully advanced through college and graduate school as a first-generation college student. My clinical work, research, teaching, and community organizing is centered in an intersectional framework influenced by Black and Indigenous women ancestors, activists, healers, and/or scholars (e.g., Collins & Bilge, 2016; Combahee River Collective, 1977; Crenshaw, 1989). I recognize the field of psychology in which I was trained and the systems in which I have been employed have been complicit in contributing to inequities and I have benefitted from those systems. As a Black woman, I also have been harmed by these systems through gendered racism. I hope my work can contribute to dismantling individual, systemic, and institutional racism, and other forms of oppression affecting historically excluded and marginalized groups to truly create a safer society and world for all people. I strive to open brave spaces for us to have challenging conversations and uphold our ethical values.

JEDI Principles

Justice generally refers to fairness for all people in order for individuals and communities to thrive. Many of us are members of professions that have established justice as among their core ethical principles, whether we are counselors (e.g., American Counseling Association, 2014; Canadian Counseling & Psychotherapy Association, 2020), marriage and family therapists (e.g., American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, 2015); psychologists (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2017; Australian Psychological Society, 2007; Canadian Psychological Association, 2017; Chinese Psychological Society, 2007; Middle East Psychological Association, 2011), or social workers (International Federation of Social Work, 2018). The work described in this journal is centered on individuals already involved or at risk for involvement in legal systems. We know that the criminal legal system does not always serve justice—whether that is to victims/survivors or those who are legal system-involved (e.g., Cassidy & Rydberg, 2020; Spinney et al., 2018). Justice entails the dismantling of barriers, systems, and structures to resources and opportunities for all.

Equity also involves the concept of fairness. Equity entails fair treatment, access, opportunity, resources, and advancement for all people. The principle acknowledges that historically and presently marginalized, underrepresented, and underserved communities exist, and equity would alleviate the imbalances that exist at a systemic or institutional level.

Diversity references psychosocial differences that can occur about individuals and groups, including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, nationality, national origin, religion/spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability status or disability, education, socioeconomic status, relationship status, employment, age or generational status, and language, to name a few. This editorial focuses on race given the current context of police violence against Black Americans, disproportionate minority contact with the legal system, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the fairly recent recognition of racism in science and in psychology noted below.

Inclusion involves creating an environment in which any individual or group can be welcomed, respected, supported, and valued. Inclusion entails creating spaces where individuals and communities feel comfortable in bringing their full and authentic selves to their environments.

JEDI Principles and Science

It is clear that science broadly (e.g., Cell Editorial Team, 2020; Collins et al., 2021), and psychology specifically (e.g., American Psychology Association, 2021a; Byrd et al., 2021), have perpetuated racism and white supremacy² as well as biases against other marginalized groups (Willis et al., 2021). We all have a responsibility to address racism and other biases in our fields, and editorial boards have a uniquely important role to play as gatekeepers of knowledge (e.g., Boyd et al., 2020; Buchanan et al., 2021; Krieger et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2020). It is clear that inequities exist based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, mononormativity, xenophobia, ageism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination based on identity. These inequities impact the communities in which we work and impact academic success, at least as measured by grant funding and publication metrics (e.g., Ginther et al., 2018; Hopkins et al., 2013; Safdar et al., 2021). Researchers with marginalized identities face a variety of barriers to academic success, including devaluing research topics that People of Color (POC) and other scholars with minoritized identities are more likely to focus on (e.g., Hoppe et al., 2019) and being cited less often than White scholars (e.g., Bertolero et al., 2020; Ginther et al., 2018). Further, individuals with multiple marginalized, intersecting identities face particular risks and have poorer outcomes based on a variety of metrics (e.g., Gattamorta et al., 2019). We are committed to addressing systemic barriers and unique risks faced by individuals with a variety of marginalized identities.

Over the past few years, many countries have been forced to acknowledge ongoing oppression, discrimination, bias, and violence faced by marginalized and/or historically excluded communities within (and at) their borders. This includes, among other indicators, the murder of Black Americans by law enforcement in the U.S. (Edwards et al., 2019; Pilkington, 2021), discovery of hundreds of unmarked graves of Indigenous children at residential schools in Canada (Austen, 2021), and anti-Muslim hate crimes in Europe (Sasnal & El Menouar, 2020). Professional associations representing Sexual Abuse’s interdisciplinary readership have highlighted the need for change within the scientific community in addition to using science to address systemic racism in our communities and institutions (e.g., psychologists (American Psychological Association (APA, 2021a), sociologists (e.g., American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education, 2020; Canadian Sociological Association, 2020, 2021)]. We intend to heed the call issued by Byrd et al. (2021) and by the American Psychological Association to engage in strategies that are actively anti-racist (APA, 2021a) and we strive to avoid complicit perpetuation of racism (Boyd et al., 2020; Byrd et al., 2021). The relatively recent focus on anti-racism is necessary and overdue; as Americans (which both authors are) we must acknowledge that racism is deeply embedded in centuries of American history as well as current systems (e.g., educational systems, legal systems). We recognize that all discrimination, bias, and oppression cause harm while simultaneously recognizing the urgency of anti-racist action. Broadly, however, we must be actively anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-xenophobic, and anti-ableist in supporting the science produced by and about members of marginalized communities and hope to see the same priorities in the research published in Sexual Abuse.

JEDI principles should not be an afterthought, rather we hope that each is integrated into all scholarship at Sexual Abuse. Our ethics codes direct us to consider the impact of various sociocultural identities in our work (e.g., Principle E, Standards 2.01(b), 9.01(b) and (c), 9.06, APA, 2017; importance of cultural considerations in making ethical decisions/balancing principles, Principle I and associated standards; CPA, 2020). Spurring on and publishing research that recognizes the complex interplay of sociocultural forces will facilitate better-informed, more ethical clinical practice.

Existing Research on Differences based on Sociocultural Identities in the Field of Sexual Violence

Although there are innumerable groupings and intersectional identities that the people we serve may hold, some have already been shown to be relevant (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, and age) to understanding, preventing, and treating sexual violence whereas others have received limited attention to date. For example, language fluency has clear implications for practices in the prevention, assessment, and treatment of sexual violence (e.g., are therapy workbooks or other homework assignments available in a language the client can read). Additionally, religious identities may inform culturally adapted interventions to maximize effectiveness. Other identities and their intersections are equally important, but we focus here on more frequently studied identities.

Race and Ethnicity

First, we must acknowledge that race is a “social construct with no underlying genetic or biological basis” (APA, 2021b, p. 3). Additionally, race and ethnicity are not synonymous; race is “the social construction and categorization of people based on perceived shared physical traits that result in the maintenance of a sociopolitical hierarchy” whereas ethnicity refers to a group with a shared culture rooted in common ancestry and history (e.g., APA, 2019, p. 5). Race and ethnicity both shape each individual’s lived experience, impacting our worldviews, relationships, and behaviors (APA, 2019). The American Psychological Association (2021a) has emphasized that “the failure to understand how the role of power, combined with the systematic exclusion of vital cultural and psychological knowledge and resources and inadequate cultural competency of providers to work with people of color” have resulted in misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment selection for patients with minoritized identities (p. 6). Race and ethnicity also are particularly relevant constructs in the criminal legal and mental health contexts.

Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) with the criminal legal system has been well-established in the broader criminological literature, including policing practices (e.g., Gase et al., 2016; Pierson et al., 2020), pre-trial detention (e.g., Omori & Peterson, 2020), charging (e.g., Starr & Rehavi, 2013), and sentencing (e.g., Brennan & Spohn, 2009). Differences in the field of sexual violence have not been studied as frequently, although an initial body of literature indicates that the effect of race on legal decision-making may be attenuated or not observed when an individual is a suspect or defendant in cases involving a sexual offense (e.g., Alderden & Ullman, 2012; Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Holleran et al., 2010). In contrast, some research does still find higher rates of filing serious charges for young Black men (Colon et al., 2018). There is evidence of disproportionate confinement (attenuated compared to other offense types but present) for Black adolescent boys adjudicated for sexual offenses (e.g., Fix et al., 2021; Lowery et al., 2018) and for Black men convicted of federal sexual abuses charges (Hartley et al., 2021). Clearly more research on DMC in the context of sexual crime is needed. Disparities in the legal system impact how individuals with minoritized racial and ethnic identities perceive the justice and fairness of the legal system. This in turn likely impacts how clients interact with evaluators, respond to assessment tool questions, and engage in therapy. Failure to consider this structural context may lead to over-pathologizing clients and examinees.

Regardless of whether there is evidence of DMC specific to sexual crimes, there may be differences in etiology, risk factors, protective factors, or the nature of effective treatments across racial and ethnic groups. There is minimal research available addressing cultural differences or universalities. There is some evidence of differences in clinical presentation and offense characteristics across race and ethnicity among adolescents and adults (e.g., Boonmann et al., 2016; Fraga Dominguez et al., 2018; Fix et al., 2019; Schaaf et al., 2019); although other research indicates no differences in subgroups by race and ethnicity in typology research (e.g., Everhart Newman et al., 2019). In line with concerns regarding use of general offending and violence risk tools with individuals who are not well-represented in development samples (e.g., Haag et al., 2016), there is initial evidence of some differences in predictive accuracy of sexual risk tools by race and ethnicity (e.g., Babchishin et al., 2012; Hanson et al., 2014; Långström, 2004; Leguízamo et al., 2017; Varela et al., 2013). Possible culturally specific risk and protective factors have been minimally studied (e.g., machismo, Aparcero et al., 2020; attitudes about age and consent, de Apodaca et al., 2005) and are not included in currently available tools. There is very little research available on differences in response to treatment or the development of strategies to leverage cultural strengths in treatment for individuals who have committed sexual offenses (e.g., Webster et al., 2004).

Age

We have long recognized the importance of age in understanding a person’s sexually abusive behavior. For example, children who engage in sexually abusive behavior rarely continue into adolescence, and adolescents who engage in sexually abusive behavior rarely continue into adulthood (e.g., Carpentier et al., 2006; Lussier, 2017; Lussier et al., 2016). Further, there are important differences in the etiology, characteristics, risk and needs of children and adolescents compared to adults who commit sexual abuse (e.g., Chaffin, 2008; Craun & Kernsmith, 2006; McKillop et al., 2015; Janka et al., 2012; Letourneau & Miner, 2005). Moreover, it is important to further examine sexual offending and recidivism from a life course perspective given the increase in older adults in the criminal legal system (Doren, 2006; Thornton, 2006; Helmus et al., 2012). Age-appropriate assessment tools must be employed when working with children and adolescents, and differences in accuracy emerge even between early and late adolescence (e.g., Viljoen et al., 2009; Wijetunga et al., 2018). The differences based on age in treatment needs are so well-established that ATSA has developed different practice guidelines for children, adolescents, and adults (ATSA, 2006, 2017).

Sex and Gender

There is also clear evidence for differences between men and women in sexual offending etiology, characteristics, and recidivism. We recognize that this research has not acknowledged the difference between sex and gender; sex “is typically assigned at birth… based on the appearance of external genitalia” whereas gender identity is “a person’s deeply felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or male; a girl, a woman, or female; or an alternative gender” (APA, 2015, p. 862). As a result, we cannot clearly identify whether findings are more likely to generalize across gender or sex. Additionally, we cannot speak to the impact of transgender, gender nonbinary, or other gender-expansive identities on sexual violence etiology, prevention, or treatment (Jumper, 2021). Most research on sexual abuse perpetration has focused on cisgender men, driven at least in part by the fact that men commit the large majority of sexual offenses. Women also sexually offend, however, and there is growing evidence that we cannot extrapolate what we have learned about men to women (e.g., findings that the Static-99R may not predict sexual recidivism among women (Marshall et al., 2021). There is also evidence of differences in etiology and motives for sexual violence and coercion by gender (e.g., Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009; O’Dougherty-Wright et al., 2010) and possible differences in early adverse experiences (e.g., Levenson et al., 2015, 2016). There is some evidence for better treatment outcomes when treatment is gender-responsive in the broader criminology literature (e.g., Gobeil et al., 2016) and gender-response treatment approaches for women who have committed sexual offenses may also prove useful (Cortoni, 2017).

Other Characteristics

There are a variety of other characteristics and identities that might impact the etiology of sexual abuse, validity of assessment tools, risk and protective factors, and treatment fit. These may include characteristics/identities that are legally protected from discrimination in the United States, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, and veteran status (Equal Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities (n.d.) (42 U.S. Code 126); Civil Rights Act (n.d.) (42 U.S. Code 21 §§2000a,d,e); Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (n.d.) (38 U.S. Code 43); Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 2020).

Conducting JEDI-Informed Research

Individual and cultural differences in research participants

Research that includes individuals with a range of sociocultural identities and explores differences between groups in a thoughtful way is needed to inform assessment, treatment, and prevention. Practitioners need to know, for example, what assessment tools are valid for use with different populations (e.g., Varela et al., 2013). This includes research on structural equivalence and measurement equivalence of assessment tools as well as recognition of questions that we currently cannot answer based on the data available (e.g., how similar and on what characteristics must someone be to a development sample to justify the use of a tool; Haag et al., 2016). We also need to understand how treatment can draw upon culturally derived strengths to improve outcomes (e.g., Anderson et al., 2018; Goodkind et al., 2015). Simple comparisons across groups, without considering the reasons for differences, can be misleading and can cause harm (e.g., examining race without acknowledging the impact of racism and racialized experiences; Boyd et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2020). In this vein, Buchanan et al. (2021) call for the use of systems centered language, to encourage “readers to and authors to maintain conscious awareness that disparities are due to inadequate structures and processes rather than individual weaknesses” (p. 10). This is consistent with this journal’s embrace of person-first language to decrease hidden biases and be respectful and accurate in our word choices (Willis & Letourneau, 2018).

Non-WEIRD participants.

Much of the published social science research literature has focused on WEIRD populations: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (Henrich et al., 2010; Rad et al., 2018). We must expressly recognize the limits to the generalizability of research on WEIRD populations (e.g., APA, 2019; Rad et al., 2018) to ensure practitioners know which studies are applicable to their work in their own contexts and to avoid perpetuating the prioritization of research on WEIRD populations (Buchanan et al., 2021). We must encourage broader research so that we can inform practitioners working with non-WEIRD populations how to best assess, treat, and prevent sexual violence. This research must include the voices of marginalized members of the communities we serve to reach the goal of ethical, informed practice. Ensuring research is applicable beyond WEIRD populations requires not only including other groups in our research, but taking a culturally humble approach (e.g., Hook et al., 2013) and recognizing that we might fail to see the flaws in applying our WEIRD frameworks and expectations to different groups. For example, Shepherd and Willis-Esqueda (2018) demonstrated the benefits of taking an emic approach (“building theories on the basis of local phenomena and experiences originating within the culture,” Cheung et al., 2011, p. 596) rather than an etic approach (i.e., applying theory and practice from one culture to another, assuming universality) to understanding risk in Indigenous populations.

Diversity of Scholars

To ensure high-quality work in research and clinical contexts, our field will benefit from greater diversity among the professionals in the field. There is evidence of better decision-making and the production of higher quality science when research teams or problem-solving groups are diverse (Antonio et al., 2004; Campbell et al., 2013; Hong & Page, 2004). Trust and engagement in research is also facilitated by having culturally-congruent, diverse research teams (e.g., George et al., 2014; Sierra-Mercado & Lázaro-Muñoz, 2018). Further, intergroup contact reduces prejudice by dominant groups towards individuals with a range of marginalized identities (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Pettigrew et al., 2011). Improving diversity in our field will require multi-level actions outside the scope of this editorial. The American Physical Society’s Bridge Program, for example, has shown success with strategies including reducing admissions barriers, supporting recruitment of graduate students from underrepresented groups, and providing mentoring to ensure these students have the necessary support to succeed in graduate school (Hodapp & Brown, 2018). Sexual Abuse can raise the profile of scholars with a wider range of identities to facilitate further diversification of our field.

What Other Journals Are Doing

A number of prominent journals have taken steps to address JEDI principles in a systemic and ongoing manner, beyond publishing calls for papers or issuing public statements. For example, Clinical Psychological Science (Association for Psychological Science, 2021) and a number of other journals require authors to describe particular demographic characteristics or acknowledge the limitations if data are not available. Authors are also asked: “Does this work contribute to the journal’s commitment to promote diversity, inclusion, and representativeness?” Such prompts set expectations for scientists, making clear that WEIRD science is incomplete science and that research advancing the goals of diversity, inclusion, and representativeness is preferred. Psychological Assessment requires authors to include a section in the discussion on “constraints on generality” in which authors acknowledge the limits of the generalizability of their research based on sample characteristics (APA, n. d.) They further specify “the examination of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity should not be reified as a biological factor, and authors should incorporate and explicitly discuss how race and ethnicity may be proxy measures for systemic racism, as well as cultural, social, environmental, economic, and structural factors” (APA, n. d.) Psychological Science (Association for Psychological Science, 2022) includes in their submission guidelines an acknowledgment that “the majority of articles published in the journal are authored by scientists from the United States'' and noted they “are encouraging of submissions of work with populations beyond the WEIRD world” and “of work conducted by psychological scientists from around the world.” Criminal Justice and Behavior (Editorial Team at Criminal Justice and Behavior, n. d.) noted their commitment to diversifying their Editorial Board and reviewer pool. Formal mentoring for junior reviewers like that offered by the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (Society of Pediatric Psychology, n. d.) can be used to increase the diversity of journal reviewers, contributing to the reduction of biases in the review process (Buchanan et al., 2021).

Improving JEDI at Sexual Abuse

We recommend the following systemic efforts to facilitate sustained change; these should be considered first steps rather than the only steps. These recommendations focus on improving the manner in which researchers and the editorial board address issues of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other identities. Our initial recommendations for improving JEDI at Sexual Abuse are informed by our knowledge of the field of sexual violence perpetration research, recommendations from professional associations (e.g., APA, 2019), and the recommendations offered by other professionals (e.g., Boyd et al., 2020; Buchanan et al., 2021).

In committing to creating change, we must measure progress; commitments without accountability are hollow. Buchanan and colleagues (2021) recently provided a framework for measuring progress toward reducing racism in psychological science: the diversity accountability index for journals (DAI-J). In Table 1, for each of our recommendations, we identified metrics indicative of success largely drawn from the DAI-J (Buchanan et al., 2021). We altered some of the metrics recommended by in the DAI-J and made some additional recommendations in Table 1 that emphasize the importance of applying JEDI principles to all marginalized identities and that recognize some specific context for Sexual Abuse.

1. Set expectations for manuscripts that are consistent with JEDI principles.

(a) Describe sociocultural identities of samples. All authors should describe the demographics of their sample in detail. Ideally, this should include race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sex, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, primary language, and any other demographics that are particularly relevant to the research questions. Researchers are encouraged to collect data on a range of identities; models such as Hays’s ADDRESSING model may be useful in thinking about relevant cultural influences to assess (Hays, 2016). Researchers should also explicitly document how these identities were operationalized and assessed (APA, 2019; Buchanan et al., 2021). The reasons for selecting a particular sample should be articulated openly (e.g., Rad et al., 2018).

Table 1.

Recommendations for Implementation of JEDI Principles at Sexual Abuse and Metrics of Success.

Recommendation	Metric for Success
Describe sociocultural identities of samples	Most articles report race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, SES, nationality, language, and other key demographic variables for samples
	“Most articles reported ethnicity for participants of all races” (Topic 9; Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 33)
	Over 33% of samples clearly distinguish sex and gender
	Most submissions that cannot provide detailed demographic information will explain why (e.g., archival data set)
	Most articles discussing race or other sociocultural identities provide the definition, operationalization, and method of assessment used. (Modified from Topic 8; Buchanan et al., 2021)
	“Journal requires authors to provide explicit statements regarding sample diversity and justification of use of WEIRD and all White samples, and reviewers are required to assess for sample inclusion concerns” (Topic 4; Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 33, p. 33)
	Over 33% of studies that do rely on WEIRD samples thoroughly acknowledge the associated limitations (i.e., with more than a global statement that the results may not generalize)
	“Most articles report three or more sociodemographic identities and at least 33% of articles examine findings by intersecting identities” (Topic 10, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 33, p. 33)
Prioritize research on diverse samples and research that takes a diversity science approach	Over 33% of publications focused on a marginalized group, and/or focused on identity-based biases and oppression. Over 33% explored the underlying factors driving these relationships and examined nuanced differences within groups. (Modified from Topic 1, Buchanan et al., 2021)
	“Journal mission statement reflects JEDI principles” (Modified from Topic 2, Buchanan et al., 2021)“The journal showcases work relevant to marginalized groups” (Modified from Topic 2, Buchanan et al., 2021)“Over 33% of publications include author positionality statements.” (Topic 2, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 33)
	“Over 33% of publications use inclusive research methods and examine” within group heterogeneity for all marginalized identity groups (modified from Topic 3, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 33)
	“Diversity science approaches are encouraged and used in over 33% of published papers” (Topic 5, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 33)
Use of systems centered language (SCL)	“Author instructions encourage SCL and over 33% of published papers use SCL” (Topic 6, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 33)
Make a commitment to highlighting the work of POC researchers and others with marginalized identities	Number of reviewers and editors who self-identify with a marginalized group will be assessed and reported annually. Over 25% of reviewers and editors will self-identify with at least one marginalized identity. Over 25% of publications will include authors who self-identify with at least one marginalized identity (modified from Topic 15, Buchanan et al., 2021)
	Track and report publicly the number of times papers about or by people with marginalized identities (promoted by Sexual Abuse through means noted in the text) are accessed and cited using the article metrics published by sage (modified from Topic 25, Buchanan et al., 2021)
Reduce bias in the review process	“Established a system to recognize bias in the review process and protocols to respond to bias in reviews” (Topic 11, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 33)
	“There is a formal system for authors to provide feedback on reviews; feedback is used to identify bias” toward scholarship by authors from marginalized groups in the review process (modified from Topic 13, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 34)
	“The frequency of discriminatory and biased feedback in reviews is published each year and benchmarks are set to reduce their occurrence” (Topic 14, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 34)
	“Editorial board members are required to complete DEI and implicit bias trainings” (Topic 17, Buchanan et al., 2021, p. 34, p. 34)
	Has programs to mentor students and scholars from underrepresented groups in both the review and editorial processes (Modified from Topic 18; Buchanan et al., 2021)

Note. The Diversity Accountability Index for Journals (DAI-J) is found in Buchanan et al. (2021)’s online preprint: https://psyarxiv.com/6nk4x/. Direct quotes and modified metrics are noted above, and the authors also acknowledge that inspiration for the other metrics we listed came from Buchanan et al. (2021) as well as other sources cited in this editorial.

We recognize that information regarding all potentially relevant characteristics might not be available for all studies; the reason this information is not available can be provided when needed. There may be circumstances in which some identities simply cannot be documented (e.g., research using record reviews when the identities are not included in the record). Nonetheless, asking about such identities should become the norm, as it is impossible for the consumers of research to know to whom the research generalizes if the characteristics of the sample are not well described (e.g., Rad et al., 2018). Relatedly, authors should be expected to explicitly address the limits to generalizability associated with the sample demographics. Justification of a study’s reliance on WEIRD samples should be offered, and authors should consider including sample descriptors in the title of the manuscript (Buchanan et al., 2021).

(b) Prioritize research on diverse samples and research that takes a diversity science approach. As recommended by APA (2019), we expect Sexual Abuse will “consider racial and ethnocultural responsiveness as a central aspect of evaluating quality of research, actively considering how limitations relate to lack of inclusion or responsiveness, as well as how authors’ emphasis on responsiveness may affect other aspects of their method” (p. 15). Thus, publication of research that includes more diverse samples should be a priority. Recognition of intersectional identities and sources of within group heterogeneity are also necessary to understand for whom a particular study’s findings are applicable and to avoid overgeneralizing; research studies that include the impact of intersecting identities should be prioritized for publication (Buchanan et al., 2021).

That said, conducting research with diverse samples while failing to update our methods and conceptualization will not elucidate the ways in which sociocultural identities impact our work or shape the lived experience of those with whom we work. We hope the editors and reviewers at Sexual Abuse will recommend revisions to research relying on methods that perpetuate existing biases (e.g., APA, 2019; Boyd et al., 2020; Hardeman & Karbeah, 2020), such as treating sociocultural identities as nuisance variables or controlling for a sociocultural identity in our analyses without consideration of why we are doing so. Papers that treat race as a biological construct and that do not consider racism, oppression, discrimination, and other systemic factors that contribute to differences across racial identities should be reviewed critically, with feedback and guidance offered to authors regarding contextual considerations (e.g., Boyd et al., 2020; Buchanan et al., 2021). Similar unfounded assumptions about other minoritized identities should also result in recommendations to authors to acknowledge contextual causes. We encourage researchers to pursue a diversity science approach. The principles articulated by Miller et al. (2019) for conducting diversity science research on race and racism are instructive and relevant: research is more rigorous and generative when researchers are “mindful of historical patterns of oppression and inequality,” work in diverse teams to conduct research with diverse samples, consider intersectionality, and focus on translation of science to real world settings and audiences (p. 1243).

Analyses that go beyond simple group differences to address underlying contextual factors that cause such differences should be highlighted in the journal. Research that centers the experience of one or more non-dominant groups without any comparison to a dominant group should also be prioritized; in contrast, we urge researchers to avoid relying on dominant groups as the “norm” to which all other groups are compared. Authors are encouraged to avoid assumptions that difference reflects deviance and to study culturally specific strengths and protective factors. Projects that seek input from the groups being studied, that take an emic approach, and that use qualitative methods to ground research in the lived experience of marginalized groups would all facilitate the goal of developing a deeper understanding of the impact of our identities. Some initial suggestions for JEDI-informed research that could fill existing gaps in our knowledge about assessment, treatment, and prevention of sexual violence are provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Some suggested approaches to fill JEDI-related gaps in existing research on sexual violence.

Gaps in Research	Examples of Needed Qualitative Research	Examples of Needed Quantitative Research
Identification of unique etiological contributors (e.g., minority stress)	Qualitative interviews with individuals who have committed sexual offenses with different sociocultural identities regarding their life experiences prior to and subsequent to their contact with the legal system	Including measures that assess different aspects of minority stress in etiological models predicting sexually abusive behaviors
Applicability of risk/need/strengths assessment tools	Qualitative interviews with stakeholders to identify unique risk and protective factors in a community (emic approach)	Item response theory analysis to determine whether existing items/scales function in the same way for different groups
	Community-based participatory research to develop new risk/need/strength assessment tools	Logistic regression, ROC, cox survival or other methods of assessing predictive validity comparing parameters across groups
Identification of culturally specific responsivity factors	Qualitative interviews with individuals who have committed sexual offenses with different sociocultural identities regarding their treatment experiences	Comparison of treatment outcomes by group, with measures pre-post-follow-up to determine whether a particular treatment is an appropriate fit for a particular group (responsivity)
	Qualitative interviews with those who deny their offense, those who drop out of treatment, and those who are noncompliant with treatment to explore potential causes including cultural mismatch with the treatment program, experiences of microaggressions or overt bias in the treatment program, or other culturally-relevant factors	Testing whether culturally-relevant variables act as moderators of treatment effect (e.g., familismo)
Identification of culturally-informed treatment approaches	Qualitative interviews regarding experiences of marginalized groups in established treatment approaches and pilot testing culturally-informed approaches developed based on research described above	Randomized trials comparing outcomes for treatment as usual and culturally-informed treatment

(c) Use of systems centered language. Sexual Abuse adheres to APA style, which includes guidelines on inclusive and bias-free language, as well as person-first language (APA, 2021c). The avoidance of labels such as “pedophile” or “sex offender” is consistent with the APA style guidelines and the reasons for this shift were articulated in a previous editorial (Willis & Letourneau, 2018). Respectful language should be used for other identities as well (e.g., using “Black people” instead of “Blacks”), including the sociocultural identities that are the focus of this initiative. Additionally, the authors of this editorial encourage the use of systems centered language to reduce the likelihood of pathologizing people when they are in systemic contexts that give rise to disadvantage (Buchanan et al., 2021).

These updated expectations for manuscripts (e.g., describing the demographic characteristics of samples) should be articulated in updated instructions to authors on the journal’s homepage (e.g., Boyd et al., 2020). The journal plans to issue a call for papers consistent with some of the above recommendations (see Michael Seto’s editorial, this issue). In addition to this call, reviewers should be actively encouraged to reward scholarship consistent with JEDI principles during the review process. Adding a question to the reviewer form regarding innovation of the approach or cuing the reviewer to rate the study on consistency with JEDI principles or diversity science approaches could facilitate this goal.

2. Make a commitment to highlighting the work of POC researchers and others with marginalized identities.

Sexual Abuse has already committed to several strategies to highlight the work of researchers with marginalized identities, which we support. The journal has committed to providing temporary open access to articles written by self-identified POC authors, if they wish, to increase visibility of their work (see Seto’s editorial, this issue). Further, the journal will provide temporary open access for articles written by geographically underrepresented authors (i.e., Asia, Africa, Middle East, Central, and South America), to increase visibility of their work as well as recognize economic disparities, such that local colleagues may not be able to access (and thus cite) work published behind paywalls. Additional actions that may facilitate this goal include selecting articles by authors from underrepresented groups for journal blog posts and promotion through ATSA’s Twitter account. Additionally, the ATSA Executive Board has agreed to provide a subsidy for professional English copy-editing for manuscripts that are invited to revise and resubmit when one of the conditions for acceptance is related to writing quality in English for authors with a different primary language. This is to recognize that many worthy submissions may face difficulties because the authors are not fluent in English, and such barriers contribute to the over-emphasis on WEIRD samples studied by WEIRD authors.

Additionally, Sexual Abuse should develop a system for collecting data on the identities of authors to be able to track progress in increasing the diversity of authors whose work appears in the journal. Authors should also be encouraged to provide positionality statements when appropriate, acknowledging their relevant identities in relation to the research described in the manuscript. Our suggestions below regarding updates to the Editorial Board and the peer review process should further facilitate the publications of work by scholars with marginalized identities.

3. Reduce bias in the review process. The EIC should continue to diversify the editorial board, given evidence that journals with POC editors in chief and diverse editorial boards publish more articles focused on race (Roberts et al., 2020). Representation of other minoritized identities (e.g., ability status, gender, sexual orientation) should also be a priority in diversifying the board. The journal may choose to publish photos of editorial board members (Buchanan et al., 2021) for a very public accountability regarding visible identities represented on the board. Additionally, Sexual Abuse already allows students to be involved as reviewers; efforts should be made to encourage the mentorship of student reviewers with marginalized identities to facilitate the development of future editors from underrepresented groups. For example, the journal could publish a call for student reviewers with minoritized identities in the ATSA newsletter or on the journal homepage. Sexual Abuse should provide training to editorial board members on incorporating JEDI principles into their reviews. Authors should be provided opportunities to inform the EIC of biases in the reviews they receive, and the journal should establish policies and procedures for addressing racism and other biases in the editorial process and the research process (Buchanan et al., 2021). Reviewers who make unsupported assumptions about non-WEIRD samples or otherwise demonstrate bias should receive feedback on their review and be given the opportunity to revise that review (Buchanan et al., 2021).

We encourage Sexual Abuse—or an enterprising author—to conduct a baseline assessment of where the journal falls on the metrics associated with these DAI-J topics. Publicly available data could be used to code most of the above (the exceptions include Topics 4, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 25). A re-assessment could be completed in three to five years to determine what progress has been made and what additional actions are needed.

We are heartened by the commitment already demonstrated by Sexual Abuse and ATSA to address systemic racism and other biases and hope to encourage further action and accountability for the organization and the journal—and ourselves—with this editorial.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Amanda M. Fanniff

Apryl A. Alexander

Notes

References

Alderden

M. A.

Ullman

S. E.

(2012). Creating a more complete and current picture: Examining police and prosecutor decision-making when processing sexual assault cases. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 525–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212453867

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (2015). Code of ethics. https://www.aamft.org/Legal_Ethics/Code_of_Ethics.aspx

American Counseling Association (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2014-code-of-ethics-finaladdress.pdf?sfvrsn=96b532c_2

American Educational Research Association, & National Academy of Education (2020). Statement in support of anti-racist education. https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/AERA_NAEd_AntiRacism_Statement_10-6-2020_with_Endorsements2.pdf

American Psychological Association (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906

American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf

American Psychological Association (2019). APA task force on race and ethnicity guidelines in PsychologyRace and ethnicity guidelines in psychology: Promoting responsiveness and equity. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-race-ethnicity.pdf

American Psychological Association (2021a). APA resolution on harnessing psychology to combat racism: Adopting a uniform definition and understanding. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/e502292021-001

American Psychological Association (2021b). Apology to people of color for APA’s role in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human hierarchy in U.S. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology

10.

American Psychological Association (2021c). Inclusive language guidelines. https://www.apa.org/about/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf

11.

American Psychological Association . (n.d.). Psychological assessment submission guidelines. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/PAS/index?tab=1

12.

Anderson

R. E.

McKenny

M. C.

Stevenson

H. C.

(2018) EMBRace: developing a racial socialization intervention to reduce racial stress and enhance racial coping among Black parents and adolescents. Family Process. famp (12412) https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12412

13.

Antonio

A. L.

Chang

M. J.

Hakuta

Kenny

D. A.

Levin

Milem

J. F.

(2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8), 507–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x

14.

Aparcero

Nijdam-Jones

Rosenfeld

García-López

(2020). Sex offender risk assessment in Latin America: An exploratory study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 51(5), 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000271

15.

Association for Psychological Science (2022). February 1. Psychological science submission guidelines. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/psychological_science/ps-submissions

16.

Association for Psychological Science (2021). Clinical psychological science submission guidelines. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/clinical/clinical-submission-guidelines#DEM.

17.

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (2006). Report of the task force on children with sexual behavior problems.

18.

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (2017). Practice guidelines for assessment, treatment, and intervention with adolescents who have engaged in sexually abusive behavior.

19.

Austen

(2021). June 26). With discovery of unmarked graves, Canada’s indigenous seek reckoning. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/world/canada/indigenous-residential-schools-grave.html

20.

Australian Psychological Society (2007). APS code of ethics. https://psychology.org.au/getmedia/d873e0db-7490-46de-bb57-c31bb1553025/18aps-code-of-ethics.pdf

21.

Babchishin

K. M.

Blais

Helmus

(2012). Do static risk factors predict differently for aboriginal sex offenders? A multi-site comparison using the original and revised static-99 and static-2002 scales. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 54(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2010.E.40

22.

Beichner

Spohn

(2005). Prosecutorial charging decisions in sexual assault cases: Examining the impact of a specialized prosecution unit. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(4), 461–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403405277195

23.

Bertolero

M. A.

Dworkin

J. D.

David

S. U.

Lloreda

C. L.

Srivastava

Stiso

Zhou

Dzirasa

Fair

D. A.

Kaczkurkin

A. N.

Marlin

B. J.

Shohamy

Uddin

L. Q.

Zurn

Bassett

D. S.

(2020). Racial and ethnic imbalance in neuroscience reference lists and intersections with gender . Neuroscience, Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.12.336230.

24.

Boonmann

Nelson

R. J.

DiCataldo

Jansen

L. M. C.

Doreleijers

T. A. H.

Vermeiren

R. R. J. M.

Colins

O. F.

Grisso

(2016). Mental health problems in young male offenders with and without sex offences: A comparison based on the MAYSI-2: Mental health in young sex offenders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26(5), 352–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1961

25.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (2020). 140 S. Ct. 1731. U.S. Supreme Court 2020.

26.

Boyd

R. W.

Lindo

E. G.

Weeks

L. D.

McLemore

M. R.

(2020July 2). On racism: A new standard for publishing on racial health inequities. Health Affairs Blog https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200630.939347/full/

27.

Brennan

P. K.

Spohn

(2009). The joint effects of offender race/ethnicity and sex on sentence length decisions in federal courts. Race and Social Problems, 1(4), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-009-9016-0

28.

Buchanan

N. T.

Perez

Prinstein

M. J.

Thurston

I. B.

(2021). Upending racism in psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905

29.

Byrd

D. A.

Rivera Mindt

M. M.

Clark

U. S.

Clarke

Thames

A. D.

Gammada

E. Z.

Manly

J. J.

(2021). Creating an antiracist psychology by addressing professional complicity in psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 33(3), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000993

30.

Canadian Counseling Psychotherapy

Association.

(2020). Code of Ethics. https://www.ccpa-accp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CCPA-2020-Code-of-Ethics-E-Book-EN.pdf

31.

Canadian Psychological Association (2017). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (4th Edition). https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf

32.

Chinese Psychological Society (2007). Chinese psychological society code of ethics for counseling and clinical practice. https://proyectoeticablog.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/cc3b3digo-de-c3a9tica-china1.pdf

33.

Canadian Sociological Association (2020). Addressing anti-Black racism in Canada. https://www.csa-scs.ca/index.php?p=news.ViewStory&story=144

34.

Canadian Sociological Association (2021) CSA-SCS Statement. https://www.csa-scs.ca/index.php?p=news.ViewStory&story=153

35.

Campbell

L. G.

Mehtani

Dozier

M. E.

Rinehart

(2013). Gender-heterogeneous working groups produce higher quality science. Plos One, 8(10), e79147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079147

36.

Carpentier

M. Y.

Silovsky

J. F.

Chaffin

(2006). Randomized trial of treatment for children with sexual behavior problems: Ten-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.482

37.

Cassidy

Rydberg

(2020). Does sentence type and length matter? Interactions of age, race, ethnicity, and gender on jail and prison sentences. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819874090

38.

Cell Editorial Team (2020). Science has a racism problem. Cell, 181(7), 1443–1444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.009

39.

Chaffin

(2008). Our minds are made up—don’t confuse us with the facts: Commentary on policies concerning children with sexual behavior problems and juvenile sex offenders. Child Maltreatment, 13(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559508314510

40.

Cheung

F. M.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Leong

F. T. L.

(2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66(7), 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022389

41.

Civil Rights Act (n.d.). 42 U.S. Code 21 § 2000a,d,e.

42.

Collins

F. S.

Adams

A. B.

Aklin

Archer

T. K.

Bernard

M. A.

Boone

Burklow

Evans

M. K.

Jackson

Johnson

A. C.

Lorsch

Lowden

M. R.

Nápoles

A. M.

Ordóñez

A. E.

Rivers

Rucker

Schwetz

Segre

J. A.

Tabak

L. A.

Wolinetz

(2021). Affirming NIH’s commitment to addressing structural racism in the biomedical research enterprise. Cell, 184(12), 3075–3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.05.014

43.

Collins

P. H.

Bilge

(2016). Intersectionality. Polity Press.

44.

Colon

K. M.

Kavanaugh

P. R.

Hummer

Ahlin

E. M.

(2018). The impact of race and extra-legal factors in charging defendants with serious sexual assault: Findings from a five-year study of one Pennsylvania court jurisdiction. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 16(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2018.1439791

45.

Combahee River

Collective.

(1977). The Combahee River Collective statement. Retrieved from https://combaheerivercollective.weebly.com/

46.

Cortoni

(2017). Treatment of female sex offenders. In Boer

D. P.

Beech

A. R.

Ward

Craig

L. A.

Rettenberger

Marshall

L. E.

Marshall

W. L.

(Eds), The Wiley Handbook on the Theories, Assessment, and Treatment of Sexual Offending. Wiley Blackwell (vols 1–3, pp. 1265–1283).

47.

Canadian Counseling & Psychotherapy Association (2020). Code of ethics. https://www.ccpa-accp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CCPA-2020-Code-of-Ethics-E-Book-EN.pdf

48.

Craun

S. W.

Kernsmith

P. D.

(2006). Juvenile offenders and sex offender registries: Examining the data behind the debate. Federal Probation, 70(3), 45–49.

49.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum (1, pp. 139-167).

50.

de Apodaca

R. F.

Schultz

J. M.

Anderson

A. N.

McLennan

M. D.

(2005). Young, unassimilated Hispanic offenders: Absolutist vs. relativist cultural assumptions. Sexuality and Culture, 9(3), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-005-1012-y

51.

Doren

D. M.

(2006). What do we know about the effect of aging on recidivism risk for sexual offenders? Sexual Abuse, 18(2), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320601800203

52.

Middle East Psychological Association (2011). Ethics code. https://members.mepa.me/downloads/MEPA-Ethics-Code.pdf

53.

Editorial Team at Criminal Justice and Behavior . (n.d.). Untitled statement https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/pb-assets/cmscontent/CJB/CJBStatement-1591895806603.pdf

54.

Edwards

Lee

Esposito

(2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16793–16798. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821204116

55.

Equal Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities . U.S. Code (42126).

56.

Everhart Newman

J. L.

Larsen

J. L.

Thompson

Cyperski

Burkhart

B. R.

(2019). Heterogeneity in male adolescents with illegal sexual behavior: A latent profile approach to classification. Sexual Abuse, 31(7), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218784554

57.

Fix

R. L.

Falligant

J. M.

Alexander

A. A.

Burkhart

B. R.

(2019). Race and victim age matter: Sexual behaviors and experiences among confined African American and European American youth with sexual and nonsexual offenses. Sexual Abuse, 31(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217720926

58.

Fix

R. L.

Fanniff

A. M.

Kline

J. L.

Letourneau

E. J.

(2021). Disproportionate minority contact: an expanded examination of how threat of violent and sexual offending impacts court outcomes. Race and Justice, Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687211032315.

59.

Fraga Dominguez

Jeglic

E. L.

Calkins

Leguizamo

(2018). Are Latinos who commit sexual offenses different? A closer examination of characteristics and offense patterns. Sexual Abuse, 30(7), 846–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217710480

60.

Gase

L. N.

Glenn

B. A.

Gomez

L. M.

Kuo

Inkelas

Ponce

N. A.

(2016). Understanding racial and ethnic disparities in arrest: The role of individual, home, school, and community characteristics. Race and Social Problems, 8(4), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-016-9183-8

61.

Gattamorta

K. A.

Salerno

J. P.

Castro

A. J.

(2019). Intersectionality and health behaviors among US high school students: Examining race/ethnicity, sexual identity, and sex. Journal of School Health, 89(10), 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12817

62.

George

Duran

Norris

(2014). A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), e16–e31. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706

63.

Ginther

D. K.

Basner

Jensen

Schnell

Kington

Schaffer

W. T.

(2018). Publications as predictors of racial and ethnic differences in NIH research awards. Plos One, 13(11), e0205929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205929

64.

Gobeil

Blanchette

Stewart

(2016). A meta-analytic review of correctional interventions for women offenders: Gender-neutral versus gender-informed approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815621100

65.

Goodkind

J. R.

Gorman

Hess

J. M.

Parker

D. P.

Hough

R. L.

(2015). Reconsidering culturally competent approaches to American Indian healing and well-being. Qualitative Health Research, 25(4), 486–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314551056

66.

Haag

A. M.

Boyes

Cheng

MacNeil

Wirove

(2016). An introduction to the issues of cross-cultural assessment inspired by Ewert v. Canada. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 3(2), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000067

67.

Hanson

R. K.

Lunetta

Phenix

Neeley

Epperson

(2014). The field validity of Static-99/R sex offender risk assessment tool in California. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 1(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000014

68.

Hardeman

R. R.

Karbeah

(2020). Examining racism in health services research: A disciplinary self‐critique. Health Services Research, 55(S2), 777–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13558

69.

Hartley

R. D.

Testa

Martinez

(2021). Race, ethnicity, and punishment for federal sex offenses: Changing composition in child pornography and sex abuse cases and temporal disparity in sentencing over time. Sexual Abuse, 33(8), 891–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063220981062

70.

Hays

P. A.

(2016). Addressing cultural complexities in practice: Assessment, diagnosis, and therapy. American Psychological Association. https://content.apa.org/doi/10.1037/14801-001

71.

Helmus

Thornton

Hanson

R. K.

Babchishin

K. M.

(2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse, 24(1), 64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951

72.

Henrich

Helne

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a

73.

Hodapp

Brown

(2018). Making physics more inclusive. Nature, 557(7707), 629–632. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05260-4

74.

Holleran

Beichner

Spohn

(2010). Examining charging agreement between police and prosecutors in rape cases. Crime & Delinquency, 56(3), 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308977

75.

Hong

Page

S. E.

(2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403723101

76.

Hook

J. N.

Davis

D. E.

Owen

Worthington

E. L.

Utsey

S. O.

(2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032595

77.

Hopkins

A. L.

Jawitz

J. W.

McCarty

Goldman

Basu

N. B.

(2013). Disparities in publication patterns by gender, race and ethnicity based on a survey of a random sample of authors. Scientometrics, 96(2), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0893-4

78.

Hoppe

T. A.

Litovitz

Willis

K. A.

Meseroll

R. A.

Perkins

M. J.

Hutchins

B. I.

Davis

A. F.

Lauer

M. S.

Valantine

H. A.

Anderson

J. M.

Santangelo

G. M.

(2019). Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/Black scientists. Science Advances, 5(10), eaaw7238. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw7238

79.

International Federation of Social Workers (2018). Global social work statement of ethical principles. https://www.ifsw.org/global-social-work-statement-of-ethical-principles/

80.

Janka

Gallasch-Nemitz

Biedermann

Dahle

K. P.

(2012). The significance of offending behavior for predicting sexual recidivism among sex offenders of various age groups. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(3), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.02.002

81.

Jones

C. P.

(2018). Toward the science and practice of anti-racism: Launching a national campaign against racism. Ethnicity & Disease, 28(Supp 1), 231. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.28.S1.231

82.

Jumper

(2021). Issues in working with transgender individuals who sexually harm. Current Psychiatry Reports, 23(7), 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01251-x

83.

Krieger

Boyd

R. W.

Maio

F. D.

Maybank

(2021). Medicine’s privileged gatekeepers: Producing harmful ignorance about racism and health. Health Affairs Blog https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20210415.305480/full/

84.

Långström

(2004). Accuracy of actuarial procedures for assessment of sexual offender recidivism risk may vary across ethnicity. Sexual Abuse, 16(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320401600202.

85.

Leguízamo

Lee

S. C.

Jeglic

E. L.

Calkins

(2017). Utility of the Static-99 and Static-99R With Latino sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 29(8), 765-785. doi: 10.1177/1079063215618377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215618377

86.

Letourneau

E. J.

Miner

M. H.

(2005). Juvenile sex offenders: A case against the legal and clinical status quo. Sexual Abuse, 17(3), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F107906320501700304

87.

Levenson

J. S.

Willis

G. M.

Prescott

D. S.

(2015). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of female sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 27(3), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214544332

88.

Levenson

J. S.

Willis

G. M.

Prescott

D. S.

(2016). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of male sex offenders: Implications for trauma-informed care. Sexual Abuse, 28(4), 340–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214535819

89.

Lowery

P. G.

Burrow

J. D.

Kaminski

R. J.

(2018). A multilevel test of the racial threat hypothesis in one state’s juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency, 64(1), 53–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128716678192

90.

Lussier

(2017). Juvenile sex offending through a developmental life course criminology perspective: An agenda for policy and research. Sexual Abuse, 29(1), 51–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215580966

91.

Lussier

Corrado

R. R.

McCuish

(2016). A criminal career study of the continuity and discontinuity of sex offending during the adolescence-adulthood transition: A prospective longitudinal study of incarcerated youth. Justice Quarterly, 33(7), 1123–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1028966

92.

Marshall

Miller

H. A.

Cortoni

Helmus

L. M.

(2021). The static-99R is not valid for women: Predictive validity in 739 females who have sexually offended. Sexual Abuse, 33(6), 631–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063220940303

93.

McKillop

Brown

Smallbone

Pritchard

(2015). Similarities and differences in adolescence-onset versus adulthood-onset sexual abuse incidents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.014

94.

Miller

A. L.

Stern

Neville

(2019). Forging diversity‐science‐informed guidelines for research on race and racism in psychological science. Journal of Social Issues, 75(4), 1240–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12356

95.

O’Dougherty Wright

Norton

D. L.

Matusek

J. A.

(2010). Predicting verbal coercion following sexual refusal during a hookup: Diverging gender patterns. Sex Roles, 62(9–10), 647–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9763-9

96.

Omori

Petersen

(2020). Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention, conviction, and sentencing. Criminology, 58(4), 678–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12257

97.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504

98.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

Wagner

Christ

(2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

99.

Pierson

Simoiu

Overgoor

Corbett-Davies

Jenson

Shoemaker

Ramachandran

Barghouty

Phillips

Shroff

Goel

(2020). A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(7), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0858-1

100.

Pilkington

(2021April 27). Police killings of Black Americans amount to crimes against humanity, international inquiry finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/26/us-police-killings-black-americans-crimes-against-humanity

101.

Rad

M. S.

Martingano

A. J.

Ginges

(2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401–11405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115

102.

Roberts

S. O.

Bareket-Shavit

Dollins

F. A.

Goldie

P. D.

Mortenson

(2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709

103.

Safdar

Naveed

Chaudhary

A. M. D.

Saboor

Zeshan

Khosa

(2021). Gender disparity in grants and awards at the national institute of health. Cureus, 13(4), e14644. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.14644.

104.

Sasnal

El Menouar

(2020). There’s a social pandemic poisoning Europe: Hatred of Muslims. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/28/europe-social-pandemic-hatred-muslims-blm

105.

Schaaf

Jeglic

E. L.

Calkins

Raymaekers

Leguizamo

(2019). Examining ethno-racial related differences in child molester typology: An MTC:CM3 approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(8), 1683–1702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516653550

106.

Schatzel-Murphy

E. A.

Harris

D. A.

Knight

R. A.

Milburn

M. A.

(2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9481-y

107.

Shepherd

S. M.

Willis-Esqueda

(2018). Indigenous perspectives on violence risk assessment: A thematic analysis. Punishment & Society, 20(5), 599–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517721485

108.

Sierra-Mercado

Lázaro-Muñoz

(2018). Enhance diversity among researchers to promote participant trust in precision medicine research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(4), 44–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1431323

109.

Society of Pediatric Psychology . (n.d.). JPP mentoring program for junior reviewers. https://pedpsych.org/junior-reviewers/

110.

Spinney

Cohen

Feyerherm

Stephenson

Yeide

Shreve

(2018). Disproportionate minority contact in the U.S. juvenile justice system: A review of the DMC literature, 2001–2014, Part I. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(5), 573–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2018.1516155

111.

Starr

S. B.

Rehavi

M. M.

(2013). Mandatory sentencing and racial disparity: Assessing the role of prosecutors and the effects of Booker. The Yale Law Journal, 123(2), 2–80.

112.

Thornton

(2006). Age and sexual recidivism: A variable connection. Sexual Abuse, 18(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320601800202

113.

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (n.d.). 38 U.S. Code 43.

114.

Varela

J. G.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Murrie

D. C.

Caperton

J. D.

Gonzalez

(2013). Do the Static-99 and static-99R perform similarly for white, black, and Latino sexual offenders? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12(4), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2013.846950

115.

Viljoen

J. L.

Elkovitch

Scalora

M. J.

Ullman

(2009). Assessment of reoffense risk in adolescents who have committed sexual offenses: Predictive validity of the ERASOR, PCL:YV, YLS/CMI, and satatic-99. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(10), 981–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809340991

116.

Webster

S. D.

Akhtar

Bowers

L. E.

Mann

R. E.

Rallings

Marshall

W. L.

(2004). The impact of the prison service sex offender treatment programme on minority ethnic offenders: A preliminary study. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000093432

117.

Wijetunga

Martinez

Rosenfeld

Cruise

(2018). The influence of age and sexual drive on the predictive validity of the juvenile sex offender assessment protocol–revised. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(1), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16650681

118.

Willis

Bridges

A. J.

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2021). Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in rates of publishing and inclusion in scientific-review processes. In Translational issues in psychological science. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000253

119.

Willis

G. M.

Letourneau

E. J.

(2018). Promoting accurate and respectful language to describe individuals and groups. Sexual Abuse, 30(5), 480–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218783799

120.

Woods

(2014). 5 things no one is actually saying about Ani DiFranco or plantations. Scott Woods makes lists. https://scottwoodsmakeslists.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/5-things-no-one-is-actually-saying-about-ani-difranco-or-plantations/