The collection and use of demographic data in psychological sciences has the potential to aid in transforming inequities brought about by unjust social conditions toward equity. However, many current methods surrounding demographic data do not achieve this goal. Some methods function to reduce, but not eliminate, inequities, whereas others may perpetuate harmful stereotypes, invalidate minoritized identities, and exclude key groups from research participation or access to disseminated findings. In this article, we aim to (a) review key ethical and social-justice dilemmas inherent to working with demographic data in psychological research and (b) introduce a framework positioned in ethics and social justice to help psychologists and researchers in social-science fields make thoughtful decisions about the collection and use of demographic data. Although demographic data methods vary across subdisciplines and research topics, we assert that these core issues—and solutions—are relevant to all research within the psychological sciences, including basic and applied research. Our overarching aim is to support key stakeholders in psychology (e.g., researchers, funding agencies, journal editors, peer reviewers) in making ethical and socially-just decisions about the collection, analysis, reporting, interpretation, and dissemination of demographic data.

Background Differences in post-secondary academic outcomes along dimensions of gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are a major concern. Few studies have considered differences in patterns of academic outcomes and underlying mechanisms driving disparities across different STEM disciplines. Using data from about 4000 undergraduates in introductory STEM courses at a large, urban university in the eastern United States, this study examines how differences in course grades by gender, race/ethnicity, and parent education vary in introductory chemistry, physics, and psychology courses. In addition, structural equation modeling techniques examine whether academic resources and discipline-specific motivational attitudes are important mediators of demographic differences in course grades. Results This study finds that women have higher course grades than men on average in psychology, and men have marginally higher grades than women in physics. In addition, students whose race/ethnicity is represented or overrepresented in these courses (students who are White and or Asian) have higher course grades in chemistry and physics and marginally higher grades in psychology on average compared with underrepresented students (who are Black, Latinx, Native American, Pacific Islander, and or other racial/ethnic backgrounds). Further, first-generation college students have lower course grades in physics and psychology on average than students with a college-educated parent. The largest average differences in course performance are about half a full letter grade (e.g., the difference between a B and an A−). This study also finds that some demographic differences in physics and chemistry performance are linked to math resources whereas some disparities in psychology are more related to verbal resources. In addition, the results suggest discipline-specific self-efficacy is a motivational attitude associated with course performance in chemistry, physics, and psychology, while discipline-specific interest is only relevant in chemistry. Conclusions Overall, the findings emphasize that there are demographic differences in post-secondary course performance on average, and academic resources and motivational attitudes help explain these differences. Importantly, the specific findings differ across chemistry, physics, and psychology. Understanding these pathways and how they are similar and different across disciplines within STEM is crucial for developing interventions aimed at attenuating disparities in post-secondary academic outcomes.

The rapid expansion of school choice is restructuring public education in the United States. This study examines associations between charter and magnet school enrollment, White-Black and White-Hispanic segregation, and test score gaps at the district level from 2009 to 2015 in third to eighth grade using the Stanford Education Data Archive and the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data. Robust findings indicate that higher charter school enrollment is associated with larger White-Black test score gaps and this effect is mediated by White-Black segregation. There is also evidence that magnet school enrollment is associated with White-Hispanic test score gaps. Overall, this study suggests that the expansion of school choice may have negative implications for structural education equity.

The collection and use of demographic data in psychological sciences has the potential to aid in transforming inequities brought about by unjust social conditions. However, current methods surrounding demographic data often accomplish the opposite: at best, reducing (but not eliminating) inequities and, at worst, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, invalidating marginalized identities, and excluding key groups from research participation or access to disseminated findings. As such, this paper aims to (1) review key ethical and social justice dilemmas inherent to working with demographic data in psychological research, and (2) introduce a framework positioned in ethics and social justice to help psychologists and researchers in aligned social science fields make thoughtful decisions about the collection and use of demographic data. Our overarching aim is to support key stakeholders in psychology (e.g., researchers, funding agencies, journal editors, peer reviewers) in making ethical and socially just decisions about the collection, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of demographic data.

No abstract