Microaggressions and “Evidence”

In his article, “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence,” Lilienfeld (2017, this issue) casts doubt on the veracity of microaggression theory and questions their existence, manifestation, and dynamics. From a selective review of the literature, he finds fault with the current state of the microaggression research program (MRP), lists 18 recommendations that would strengthen such programs, and concludes that the scientific status of the MRP is far too preliminary to warrant its dissemination to real-world contexts. He calls for an end to microaggression initiatives on college campuses until further scientific evidence supports their detrimental impact, and he asserts that not doing so will tarnish the reputation of psychology in the public eye. From the perspective of psychological science, he presents a compelling case in his article and even strikes a responsive chord to some of my own concerns about the state of MRP. In reading his review, however, I am left with a hollow feeling not so much based upon disagreements with the technical aspects of research, but with the invisibility of how Lilienfeld advocates arriving at the truth and what constitutes evidence. Let me address several major concerns. First, Lilienfeld fails to realize that there is more than one way to ask and answer questions about the human condition, that what constitutes evidence is often bathed in the values of the dominant society, and that scientific methods we employ often shortchange real-world contexts. It is not that his demand for more scientific rigor is misguided, but his story comes from only the perspective of the hunter and ignores that of the lion. Let me use an example to illustrate this point. Freshly out of my doctoral program and armed with a strong belief in the principles and practices of psychological science, I met a Nigerian scholar who found my unwavering commitment to empiricism amusing. He shared with me a tale often told to children in his country about a female elementary school teacher who posed a math problem to her class: “Suppose there are four blackbirds sitting on a tree branch. You take a slingshot and shoot one of them. How many are left? ” A White student answered quickly, “That’s easy teacher. four take away one is three. ” An equally eager Nigerian immigrant boy stated with equal certainty that the answer was “zero. ” The teacher chuckled at the Nigerian youth, indicated the answer was wrong and suggested he study more math. From that day forth, the young boy seemed to withdraw from class activities and seldom spoke to his classmates or teacher. This story gets to the heart of the unspoken assumptions of psychological science, the epistemological issues it raises, and how power and privilege determines the nature of reality. If the teacher had pursued the reasons behind the Nigerian student’s answer, she might have heard the following: “If you shoot one bird, the others will fly away. ” Herein lays a major worldview difference between that of the teacher and the African youth. From a Western science perspective, the math problem represents a hypothetical (abstract) situation that requires a literal (task) answer. From the perspective of the Nigerian student, however, his answer is based upon lived experience, a known relationship between birds, and an understanding of how the real (not hypothetical) world operates. Seen from the perspective of the hunter and the lion, both answers may be considered correct, but unfortunately, it is the hunter’s tale that determines “truth” and can result in cultural oppression (imposing one reality over another) with devastating consequences. For the Nigerian boy, he is left to feel invalidated, inadequate, and alienated from the curriculum and teacher. His school 664437 PPSXXX10.1177/1745691616664437SueMicroaggressions and “Evidence” research-article2017