Becoming wilder: Rethinking universality and accountability in developmental science

Area of Science:

• Developmental Sciences
• Psychology
• Social Sciences

Background:

• The field of psychology, particularly developmental sciences, has been criticized for its reliance on samples from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies.
• This WEIRD bias limits the generalizability of psychological theories and findings, potentially perpetuating harmful epistemic inequities.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the concept of a "WILD" (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) psychology.
• To propose actionable strategies for moving beyond WEIRD bias in psychological research and knowledge production.
• To advocate for genuine epistemic justice within the developmental sciences.

Main Methods:

• This is a commentary, engaging with existing literature and theoretical frameworks.
• It involves critical analysis of current research practices and calls for decolonizing knowledge production.
• The approach emphasizes theoretical argumentation and calls for structural transformation.

Main Results:

• Awareness of WEIRD bias is insufficient; accountability and structural transformation are essential.
• Challenging the aspiration to universality in psychological theories is crucial.
• Embracing multiplicity and engaging in anticolonial praxis are necessary steps.

Conclusions:

• Dismantling systemic inequities in knowledge production requires more than inclusivity; it demands fundamental change.
• Achieving genuine epistemic justice in developmental sciences necessitates a move beyond WEIRD-centric perspectives.
• The call for a "WILD" psychology highlights the urgent need for decolonizing research methodologies and epistemologies.