Because the term “diversity” has two related but different meanings, what authors mean when they use the term is inherently unclear. In its broad form, it refers to vast variety. In its narrow form, it refers to human demographic categories deemed deserving of special attention by social justice–oriented activists. In this article, I review Hommel’s critique of Roberts et al. (2020), which, I suggest, essentially constitutes two claims: that Roberts et al.’s (2020) call for diversity in psychological science focuses exclusively on the latter narrow form of diversity and ignores the scientific importance of diversity in the broader sense, and ignoring diversity in the broader sense is scientifically unjustified. Although Hommel’s critique is mostly justified, this is not because Roberts et al. (2020) are wrong to call for greater social justice–oriented demographic diversity in psychology but because Hommel’s call for the broader form of diversity subsumes that of Roberts et al. (2020) and has other aspects critical to creating a valid, generalizable, rigorous, and inclusive psychological science. In doing so, I also highlight omissions, limitations, and potential downsides to the narrow manner in which psychology and the broader academy are currently implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion.

中文翻译：

---

多样性就是多样化：社会正义赔偿与科学


由于“多样性”一词有两个相关但不同的含义，因此作者在使用该术语时的含义本质上是不清楚的。从广义上讲，它指的是多种多样的。就其狭义形式而言，它指的是社会正义活动家认为值得特别关注的人口统计类别。在这篇文章中，我回顾了霍梅尔对罗伯茨等人的批评。 （2020），我认为，这本质上构成了两个主张：罗伯茨等人（2020）对心理科学多样性的呼吁仅关注后者狭隘形式的多样性，而忽略了更广泛意义上的多样性的科学重要性，而忽视更广泛意义上的多样性在科学上是不合理的。尽管霍梅尔的批评大多是合理的，但这并不是因为罗伯茨等人。 （2020）呼吁在心理学中实现更大的以社会正义为导向的人口多样性是错误的，但因为霍梅尔对更广泛形式的多样性的呼吁包含了罗伯茨等人的呼吁。 （2020）并且具有对于创建有效的、可推广的、严格的和包容性的心理科学至关重要的其他方面。在此过程中，我还强调了心理学和更广泛的学术界目前实施多样性、公平性和包容性的狭隘方式的遗漏、局限性和潜在的缺点。