Content meta-analysis of a racial hereditarian research “bibliography” reveals minimal support for Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston's model of “scientific racism”

Abstract

Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston (BJ&W; 2024) argue that a “racial hereditarian research” (RHR) program exists, is prominently represented in academic literature, and is socially harmful as it supports “scientific racism” and emboldens the far-right. Consequently, drastic steps should be taken by the American Psychological Association to curb its production. They support these claims with a bibliography of alleged RHR publications and other outputs appearing from 2012 on. To determine the validity of their claims, we conducted a content meta-analysis of the 268 peer-reviewed articles (excluding editorials, book reviews, etc.) listed in Section 1 of their bibliography. These were independently rated using the following dimensions (as explicated by BJ&W): (1) use of “folk” racial categories; (2) biological race realism; (3) claims that differences between “races” are due to selection and/or genetic factors - these being the core of BJ&W's definition of RHR. Additional criteria were: (4) discussion of racial “proxy” categories (e.g., nations); and (5) degree of interest shown in the articles by one White nationalist publication. Inter-rater reliability was acceptable (ICC_3,k = 0.711, 95% CI = 0.633, 0.773). A Content factor was identified among the averaged ratings exhibiting strong positive loadings for 1, 2, and 3 (indicating an RHR program), but a significant negative loading for 4 (indicating that nations, etc. tend not to be employed as racial proxies, but are typically used rather than race in such studies), and a null loading for 5. The last result (along with consideration of data presented elsewhere in the bibliography) counteracts the idea that RHR constitutes “scientific racism”, or supports White nationalism. Only 23 % of the publications unambiguously (based on 100 % convergence between raters for 1, 2, and 3) qualify as RHR, with the plurality (37 %) appearing in one niche journal, consistent with strong scientific taboos against RHR. Moreover, 30% of the publications unambiguously had nothing to do with RHR. BJ&W's characterisation of their bibliography as evidencing wide scale “scientific racism” is therefore not compellingly supported by its contents.