Article

Epistemological Psychology and Developing Societies

35(1) 69­–86, 2023
Allyship © 2023 Department of Psychology,
University of Allahabad

Reprints and permissions:

in.sagepub.com/journals-
permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/09713336231152301
journals.sagepub.com/home/pds

Seth Oppong1,2

Abstract
Discussions about decolonising psychology now abound. A key
perspective from which these commentaries have been written relates
to a confrontation of the gatekeepers in global psychology. While this
approach is valuable to end epistemological violence and other forms
of injustice, it also ends up alienating influential scholars in hegemonic
psychology who can magnify the impact of the decolonisation effort.
In this article, I borrow from the anti-racism literature the concept of
allyship to put forward a new concept of epistemological allyship (EA). I
position EA to invite, but not to demand, support from and to provide
guidance to gatekeepers who truly wish to support the decolonisation
efforts. However, unlike the past experiences with ending slavery in
which Black people were portrayed to or required to beg for freedom,
this concept of EA is not to be understood in this light. Rather it should
be understood to imply that while academics from the majority of
the world (AMWs) are fighting their own epistemological battles, any
helpful support is and should be welcome.

Keywords
Epistemological violence, epistemological allyship, decolonising, gatekeepers

1 University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana

2 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Corresponding author:
Seth Oppong, University of Botswana, Plot 4775 Notwane Road, Gaborone, Botswana.
E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]
70 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

Introduction
It has been argued that psychology needs to be decolonised to ensure that
it becomes a truly global science of human behaviour (Malherbe &
Ratele, 2022; Oppong, 2019b, 2020b, 2022b; Rad et al., 2018). Thus,
decolonisation becomes a means to making psychology a global science.
Decolonisation is often used interchangeably with indigenisation.
However, decolonisation involves attempts at dismantling the colonial
institutional structures that confer the status of epistemic centres on
certain groups of people or their countries of origin or languages
(Oppong, 2022b). Indigenisation, on the other hand, involves accepting
the local ways of knowing embedded in a particular culture as valid ways
of knowing (Oppong, 2022b). Indigenisation can be offered as one of the
means to decolonisation (Oppong, 2022b; Pickren & Taşҫı, 2022).
However, it is also possible to decolonise by ensuring adequate
representation of the marginalised (Albertus, 2019) as part of the
institutions is the people who work in them. This is because institutions
tend to be ‘people not places’ given that people create and enact the
structure, policies and procedures of the institution. Thus, one way to
decolonise is to open up institutions to those who previously have not
had an adequate institutional presence in a multiracial space (such as a
country, state, university, or community of people). Oppong (2022b)
defined multiracial space as both the coexistence of people in a certain
space and the uneven distribution of power in such spaces. This means
that decolonisation would not apply to issues of inclusion like ensuring
gender diversity and inclusive workspaces for persons with disabilities.
Several empirical studies and commentaries have been published on
diversity or institutional representation in the sociology of knowledge
with respect to the demographic characteristics of actors in the knowledge
production and dissemination process (Clay, 2017; Diener et al., 2014;
Eagly & Miller, 2016; Haggbloom et al., 2002; Palser et al., 2022). These
studies have concluded that psychology is dominated by White males at
the upper echelons of the discipline. This implies that women and
academics from the majority of the world (AMWs) are unrepresented at
the upper echelons of psychology in terms of professorial rank, editorial
presence or established scholars. Indeed, these studies have often drawn
our attention to the lopsided distribution of prestige and power in the
discipline of psychology in favour of White males in the United States of
America at the Ivy League or prestigious institutions (Clay, 2017; Diener
et al., 2014; Eagly & Miller, 2016; Haggbloom et al., 2002; Palser et al.,
2022).
Oppong 71

One of the sequelae of the nonrepresentation of AMWs is

epistemological violence (EV). Introduced by Teo (2008, 2010) into the
language of the social sciences, EV occurs ‘when speculative explanations
for observed group differences present one of the groups as inferior or
weaker relative to the other while, at the same time, those speculations
appear as facts’ (Oppong, 2020a, p. 468). EV is more likely to occur
when the marginalised people are not represented in the science of
psychology as people on whom research is conducted (Arnett, 2009; Rad
et al., 2018; Thalmayer, et al., 2021) and knowledge creators (at least by
way of publication) (Clay, 2017; Diener et al., 2014; Eagly & Miller,
2016; Haggbloom et al., 2002; Rad et al., 2018) or as gatekeepers of
knowledge dissemination (Palser et al., 2022). This is because there shall
be no voice from the marginalised group to counter the narrative of the
mainstream when results of data analyses are being interpreted in ways
that commit EV against them. For instance, as a gatekeeper (editors or
reviewers), persons on the periphery of knowledge will be able to point
out errors in the interpretations as well as suggest better ways to present
the same to respect alternative ways of knowing and being. Of importance
are the two sub-types of EV Oppong (2020a) has identified, namely:
intentional EV (a calculated or premeditated form that seeks to promote
a specific agenda) and accidental EV (mistakes that occur because of
limited knowledge about members of the marginalised group). The
absence of persons on the periphery of knowledge will mean that either
type of EV will be committed. However, it is much easier to address
accidental EV when members of marginalised groups are present in the
research process (from conception to execution to dissemination to
editorial decision-making). On the other hand, intentional EV may be
difficult to address even with the presence of marginalised people in the
research process. This is because people who are inclined to promote a
certain agenda will always fail to thoroughly consider the alternative
perspective. An example is the debate between the globalists (e.g.,
McCoy et al., 2022; Weber et al., 2017, 2021) and the contextualists
(e.g., Morelli et al., 2017; Oppong & Strader, 2022; Scheidecker et al.,
2021, 2022) about the dangers of exporting early childhood development
evidence based on mostly Western samples to communities existing
outside of Western settings. While the contextualists argue for a more
thorough and nuanced consideration of the cultural resources in designing
and implementing early childhood interventions, the globalists favour a
more decontextualised approach to childcare interventions.
72 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

Calls have also been made to reform institutional arrangements to allow

for a more diverse workforce in knowledge production and dissemination
(Clay, 2017; Diener et al., 2014; Eagly & Miller, 2016; Haggbloom et al.,
2002; Palser et al., 2022). Some of these proposals have included expanding
editorial boards of journals to include marginalised groups (Palser et al.,
2022), ending colonial science or parachute research/science or ‘helicopter
research’ through meaningful collaborations (Adame, 2021; Odeny &
Bosurgi, 2022; Smith, 2018), and having more non-English language
journals feature in the databases like Scopus and Web of Science (Liu,
2017). Other proposals include making use of non-English language
publications for global science (Amano et al., 2021; Bahji et al., 2022;
Márquez & Porras, 2020), supporting non-native English authors to
publish in the English language (Geiger et al., 2022), and inclusion of
more participants outside of Western settings in psychology research and
publication (Arnett, 2009; Rad et al., 2018; Thalmayer et al., 2021). Thus,
we can realise that some of the proposals target the journal editorial boards
(Palser et al., 2022) and editorial policies (Geiger et al., 2022; Rad et al.,
2018) while other proposals target researchers and science practitioners as
well as their practices (Adame, 2021; Amano et al., 2021; Bahji et al.,
2022; Márquez & Porras, 2020; Odeny & Bosurgi, 2022; Smith, 2018).
Though a lot has been said about meaningful collaborations (Adame,
2021; Odeny & Bosurgi, 2022; Smith, 2018), the suggestions seem to be
about researchers who wish to conduct studies outside of the geographical
locations of their origin. However, there has been little or no focus on what
influential scholars who genuinely wish to support marginalised academics
can do to assist.
In the rest of the article, I discuss the difficulties associated with
sharing power or letting go of one’s power. I also borrow from the anti-
racism literature the concept of allyship to put forward a new concept of
epistemological allyship (EA). I position EA to invite support from and
to provide guidance to gatekeepers who truly wish to support the
decolonisation efforts.

Sharing Power or Letting Go of One’s Power

Asking people who previously wielded power over others to share the
same power with people over whom they had the power is not natural for
many. Yet, this is what I ask of those influential scholars in knowledge
creation and dissemination. I do so not because there is something wrong
Oppong 73

with wielding power over others. This is because it is commonplace to find

in every human society a social hierarchy such that some people wield
power and that it is only natural that some people will lead. Contemporarily,
sharing power with others has been presented as empowering (Chen et al.,
2014; Edelmann et al., 2020). Evidence shows that sharing power with
others leads to a greater sense of ownership (Edelmann et al., 2020),
stronger bonds and cooperation (Bloom & Bloom, 2020), and improved
productivity (Chen et al., 2014). Despite these salutary impacts, it remains
unnatural for human beings to share power. For instance, sharing power
leads to loss of influence and control and sometimes part of one’s identity.
Thus, to ask people to share their power is asking so much from them. This
is to say that I do not ask for power-sharing as a demand or as a plea but to
draw on the collective human conscience to assist in ending EV and other
forms of injustice. Again, I also present this call as necessary for making
psychology a truly global science of all humans (Oppong, 2019b, 2020b,
2022b; Rad et al., 2018). Sharing of power shall contribute to better
practice by all psychologists as it will enable other perspectives to be
presented and inform research and practices (Oppong, 2022b).
I cast the call for power-sharing by influential scholars in psychology
in a different light (as opposed to a call for power-sharing as a demand or
as a plea). As has been indicated already, it can be emotionally painful to
let go of the power one has over things. As a result, the quest for power-
sharing should not be seen as an easy call on the part of the powerful.
Those with power have every right to resist as in every human community,
regardless of race and culture, there shall be those in charge and that
power-sharing can lead to the currently powerful group being replaced
by the marginalised in a role reversal. Thus, power-sharing is not neutral.
Decolonising psychology appears to be a political practice because, for
instance, decolonisation in Africa reduces to ‘a struggle for power
between a Black elite (predominantly educated, middle-class males) and
the Western elite’ (Oppong, 2022b, p. 5). We need to recognise and
accept the tensions and political struggles that are inherent in decolonising
any discipline for what they are—tensions and political struggles for
power. These political struggles lead to loss of power on the part of those
who previously wielded power, and this must be understood in the
context of every human community always having social structures.
Thus, if the quest for power-sharing is presented as revolutionary it is
going to be faced with resistance for the fear that the marginalised desire
to rule only marginalises the once powerful in return. This is likely the
case in many multiracial spaces around the world. For instance, despite
74 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

the promise of a rainbow nation, South Africa suffered an exodus of

White South Africans immediately after the fall of apartheid (Griffiths &
Prozesky, 2010) and currently (BusinessTech, 2021) for the fear of
facing retribution, marginalisation, or simply the idea that the once ruled
shall have power over them. This implies that power-sharing can alienate
influential scholars in hegemonic psychology who have the capacity to
magnify the impact of the decolonisation effort. But why is the influential
scholar in hegemonic psychology relevant for decolonisation? There is
evidence that the prominence or prestige of co-authors (e.g., co-authoring
with Nobel Laureates) leads to more favourable peer reviews and
increases the chance of a manuscript being accepted (Huber et al., 2022).
Again, co-authoring with influential scholars and merely collaborating
with highly cited authors result in more citations (Elgendi, 2019;
Tahamtan et al., 2016; Talaat & Gamel, 2022) and this impact is greater
in the social and behavioural sciences (Abramo & D’Angelo, 2015). The
implication is that collaborations lead to greater visibility, something
AMWs often need to disseminate their ideas. Thus, marginalised
academics stand to benefit from association with influential scholars in
the social sciences. Prominent authors have the capital to confer on
marginalised academics certain attributes through mere association. This
resembles a case of classical conditioning; the neutral stimulus (the
marginalised academic) by being paired repeatedly (in this case, just
once) with an unconditioned stimulus (the influential scholar), and the
marginalised academic seems to be viewed to have similar positive
attributes as the influential scholar.
However, this wish for power-sharing through collaboration must not
be misconstrued as begging to be relevant or a need to be saved. This
idea of Black people being expected to beg for freedom occurred in the
context of ending slavery, apartheid and colonialism as Black people
were portrayed as begging for their own freedom (Orelus, 2012; Taylor
et al., 2019). This call must not be understood as a plea for help or
begging for freedom. Rather, while AMWs are fighting their own
epistemological battles, any helpful support in the struggle is and should
be welcome. It is in this strategic understanding of the higher education
ecosystem that I argue for seeking and accepting genuine EA.

Epistemological Allyship
Inviting or accepting EA can be seen to be beneficial to both AMWs and
Western academics in their quest to disseminate their ideas. But what
Oppong 75

constitutes EA? First, I present the concept of allyship in the anti-racial

literature to give us a sense of how it has been constituted and how I
apply it here. Usually, an ally is an outgroup individual who wants to
support and take action for and on behalf of members of a marginalised
group. Oluo (2018) defines allyship as

an active, consistent, and challenging practice of unlearning and

reevaluating, in which a person of privilege seeks to work in solidarity
with a marginalized group. Allyship is not an identity – it is a lifelong
process of building relationships based on trust, consistency, and
accountability with marginalized individuals and/or groups of people.
Allyship is not self-defined – work and efforts must be recognized by
those you are seeking to ally with. (p. 134).

Atcheson (2018, para. 7) argues that allyship provides a prospect for

members of the privileged group to grow and learn about themselves
while they build confidence in members of the marginalised groups.
Thus, allyship is performative and expressed in actions rather than
identity and a perfunctory act. There is also a danger of it being misused
or abused by some members of the dominant group who wish to exploit
the plight of the marginalised group for their own benefit instead
(Bourke, 2020; Nixon, 2019; Saad, 2020). On the other hand, how
allyship is depicted in the anti-racial or inclusion literature and work also
makes it so burdensome that those who desire to be allies must think
twice about assuming that role (Estrellado et al., 2021; Nixon, 2019;
Saad, 2020). This is because one cannot be oneself in expressing one’s
thoughts without some form of self-censorship or self-policing (or
censorship by the societal moral police) or one needs to be constantly
mindful of one’s language to be respectful of members of the marginalised
groups (Atcheson, 2018; Estrellado et al., 2021; Nixon, 2019; Reason &
Broido, 2005). However, refusing to accept such a burden invites
criticism of fragility, apathy and tokenism (Bourke, 2020; Saad, 2020).
For instance, Saad (2020, p. 127) argues that ‘the intentional nonaction
of white apathy is just as dangerous as these intentional actions of racism’
and attributes this apathy to white privilege, white fragility, white silence,
white exceptionalism, colour blindness, and anti-blackness and racist
stereotypes. Besides, Saad (2020, p. 164) suggests that members of the
privileged group ought to ‘listen, apologize, and do better going forward’
when called out or called in. I agree with Nixon (2019) that those who
care to enact allyship should practise critical allyship in order not to use
the role to enhance their personal power. Similarly, I also discourage
76 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

white saviourism and optical allyship in the way it portrays persons

outside of Western settings as hopelessly helpless in order to increase the
power or privilege of the actor (Nixon, 2019; Saad, 2020; Sachs &
Oppong, 2022). Though Estrellado et al. (2021) alluded to the emotional
burden on the part of the members of the marginalised group, it is also
fair to say that members of the dominant group are equally burdened by
the restrictive nature of meaningful engagement, barring the social
norms they are used to. Thus, it appears that marginalised groups seem
to invite allies but set restrictive rules that make engagement difficult to
enact. These parameters alienate people who can assist but are not ready
for these rules. It is likely that such persons may be called out as cowards
and fragile. However, they do not owe any member of the marginalised
group a hand of help and they can continue to live their lives normally
without bothering about them. Thus, it reduces to: if you help wrongly,
you are accused and if you refuse to help, you are equally accused. This
has implications for the extent of meaningful engagement some members
of privileged groups would desire to have with members of marginalised
groups. It also shows that trust is required for meaningful collaboration
and engagement.
However, I strip the traditional concept of allyship off the insidious
blame placed on people simply because of the racial group into which
they have been born. I view ‘race’ as a social construct as there is no
evidence of biological categories in terms of DNA (Duello et al., 2021;
Mersha & Beck, 2020; Umek & Fischer, 2020) and I use ‘racial group’
to reflect groupings we have created based on this social construct of
race. I agree with Mersha and Beck (2020) that, in spite of no evidence
of biological race, we should continue to use the term to quantify and
close racial differences, where we can. There is no need for people to be
ashamed of one’s race over which they have no control; after all, one has
no choice in the matter of which people decide to copulate and which
racial group into which one will be born. Therefore, I submit EA as
genuine assistance received in support of one’s epistemic agency. Here,
I refer to EA as genuine assistance not because I want it to be as restrictive
as its past depictions, but to suggest that it is that which is enacted by
influential scholars or simply scholars from the dominant groups who
genuinely want to see another human being progress rather than seeing
the one in need of assistance as merely a member of a marginalised
group. It is important we understand that being seen as a human being as
opposed to being a member of a marginalised group helps in understanding
that the influential scholar who chooses to be an ally should be allowed
Oppong 77

to behave normally around you. If not, that influential scholar owns no

one an explanation for not wanting to be an ally or for avoiding spaces
where such issues are discussed. And accusing such influential scholars
of being fragile shows how entitled members of the marginalised groups
present themselves to the public. I repeat, no one owes anyone any
support to gain visibility in one’s research career. Rather, influential
scholars shall mentor those they can work with and not those who are
themselves too fragile that they want to define the exact nature of
interactions enacted in the mentorship. Influential scholars who do not
want to enact EA should not and cannot be ridiculed or called out: it is
their choice and right not to do anything or to do something. They should
be allowed to live their quiet lives. This, therefore, calls for dissenting
viewpoints and not only those that agree with our preconceived view of
one’s world.
Noting that most of the calls to ensure a more diverse workforce in
knowledge production and dissemination have focused on institutional
arrangements (Clay, 2017; Diener et al., 2014; Eagly & Miller, 2016;
Haggbloom et al., 2002; Palser et al., 2022), I submit EA as complementary
to the focus on the individual knowledge worker. In what ways can this
EA (stripped off the blame games) be enacted? First, influential scholars
who have the time and the resilience to withstand the emotional burden
of allyship (allyship may also provide an ally with a fountain of enormous
energy as well) may provide access to visibility to marginalised groups
through mentorship. In the area of historical scholarship in psychology,
I called on the members of Division 18 of International Association of
Applied Psychology: History to consider providing mentorship as a way
of assisting with historical scholarship in psychology by AMWs
(Oppong, 2019a), a subfield which is almost non-existent in the majority
of the world. Mentorship is required to show academics of marginalised
backgrounds how to publish, particularly the language of publication. It
has already been established that collaborating with influential scholars
has a salutary effect on one’s visibility (Abramo & D’Angelo, 2015;
Elgendi, 2019; Tahamtan et al., 2016; Talaat & Gamel, 2022). Therefore,
mentors can open doors for AMWs needing visibility. The mentor can
also be one’s advocate, championing the mentee’s cause. Thus, those
who genuinely want to assist in reforming knowledge production and
dissemination and have the time to do so may opt for availing themselves
to mentor. However, it should be said that the request for mentorship can
come from the prospective mentee or an invitation to mentor can also be
made by the mentor. It should also be noted that mentors are more likely
78 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

to concentrate on those already doing ‘original, daring, stimulating’

work (Lamont, 2019, p. 34). Thus, doing exciting work can attract
attention and invitation as no one want to waste her or his effort and
resources on those whose initial work does not appear to be on a trajectory
of prominence. Similarly, epistemological allies may use their voice to
create a psychologically safe environment for AMWs to flourish. This
does not mean that academics from dominant groups must be mindful of
the language they use but to suggests that they can (or not should)
validate AMWs and their ideas. This will represent an important aspect
of the mentorship.
When it is not possible to actively engage in mentorship, the
epistemological ally may opt for other activities like reading and citing
sources outside of Western settings. Scholars tend to read and cite
themselves (King et al., 2017) or read and cite more persons in their
social networks (Tahamtan et al., 2016; Talaat & Gamel, 2022; Wagner
et al., 2015). Why should anyone expect this pattern in readership and
citation to change? Lamont (2019, p. 34) is still relevant here; if you are
not doing ‘original, daring, [and] stimulating’ work, why should anyone
bother to cite your work in any serious discourse? It appears that visible
researchers are more likely to be cited for theoretical and methodological
contributions than merely as a related empirical study. This is because
‘original, daring, [and] stimulating’ work (Lamont, 2019, p. 34) is more
likely to occur in the form of theoretical and methodological contributions
(Oppong, 2022a; Yankah, 2012). Thus, as much as epistemological allies
are being called upon to expand the scope of what they read and cite,
AMWs also have a responsibility to write about things that contribute
unique perspectives. However, this call is to encourage epistemological
allies to search databases beyond their usual focus to include non-
mainstream ones like African Journals Online and many similar others to
locate relevant papers related to their work. This will enable them to
begin to question established facts with cross-cultural evidence so as to
improve the generalisability of their research beyond the Western
contexts (Oppong, 2022; Wang et al., 2016). Though evidence exists that
mentioning settings outside of Western contexts in the titles of research
articles often leads to lower readership and citation (Kahalon et al.,
2022), epistemological allies should take this as an opportunity to rather
screen for more relevant research papers outside of Western settings to
read and, if possible, cite.
Another way epistemological allies can support academics from
marginalised groups is through funding. Here, I do not speak of the
Oppong 79

common practice where funding agencies require Western applicants

to have AMWs as part of the research team to qualify for the funding.
Rather, I speak of situations where Western scholars collaborate
meaningfully with their AMWs to conceptualise the study and jointly
draft the research proposal as well as the grant application
documentation. This will help to transfer valuable grant writing skills
to AWMs. Of course, this can be seen as a form of mentorship, but
funding issues deserve special attention. Again, Western scholars
with funding may decide, within the limits of the funding, to support
mini projects that focus on and involve issues of concern to AMWs.
Given that some funders will frown upon such a practice, it may be
better for the epistemological ally to discuss with the funders and
jointly work out the best way to frame this sub-funding to support
work related to the broader theme of the major funding by AMWs. I
am not in any way demanding that this should be done in every case
of major funding, but that, where it applies and is feasible as well as
it can improve our understanding in a particular domain, allies should
consider such an assistive practice. On the other hand, allies who
happen to be part of major funding adjudication committees may use
their power to advocate for such reforms or at least support grant
proposals that comprise some form of sub-funding to support work
by AMWs. It will be a bizarre practice to mandate that every grant
proposal must contain sub-funding focused on topics of relevance to
the majority of the world. Thus, institutional reform involving sub-
funding as a criterion will not be helpful. After all, Western scholars
can be just fine without being bothered by concerns of relevance to
the majority of the world in her or their grant proposal. Similarly, the
funding agency will be just fine without being concerned with issues
of relevance to the majority of the world. After all, funding decisions
have been made in that manner in the past without much of a problem
for the funding agencies.

Conclusion
In this article, I submit EA as complementary to various calls for
reforms that target the institutions of knowledge production and
dissemination. While the various calls focus on the structures, EA
targets the individual psychological scientist as the leverage for change.
80 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

Thus, leveraging EA can introduce reforms at the institutional level

from the bottom up if the behavioural changes become strong enough
to be institutionalised. Regardless, EA can amplify decolonisation
efforts while contributing to ending EV. I suggest that EA can be
enacted through mentorship, increasing readership and citations of
sources outside of Western settings, and sub-funding practices. These
ways of enacting EA are meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.
Therefore, I encourage other researchers and concerned individuals to
work out new ways of enacting EA that can be used by allies who
genuinely wish to support the decolonisation effort. As much as it is
acceptable for members of the dominant groups to fashion out new
ways to enacting EA, I will call on AMWs to lead the discourse rather
than to be led. This will ensure that whatever new ways of enacting that
are fashioned out will be owned by AMWs and that Western scholars
will become more comfortable with enacting such forms of EA.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that often AMWs are led and some
proudly wish to be led (Oppong, 2019b; Ssentongo, 2020), denying
themselves of epistemic agency (Oppong, 2017, 2019b). Therefore,
AMWs are expected to begin to do for themselves what they expect
others to do for them. After all, heaven helps those who help themselves.
Thus, this scholarship should not be misconstrued as undermining
other efforts at decolonising psychology but as it calls on AMWs to
change their behaviours to be ready in order to take advantage of
reforms, institutional or individual level.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or
publication of this article.

References
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2015). The relationship between the number of
authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing
journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 746–761. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.003
Adame, F. (2021). Meaningful collaborations can end ‘helicopter research’.
Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01795-1
Oppong 81

Albertus, R. W. (2019). Decolonisation of institutional structures in South

African Universities: A critical perspective. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1),
1620403. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1620403
Amano, T., Berdejo-Espinola, V., Christie, A. P., Willott, K., Akasaka, M.,
Báldi, A., Berthinussen, A., Bertolino, S., Bladon, A. J., Chen, M., Choi,
C. Y., Bou Dagher Kharrat, M., de Oliveira, L. G., Farhat, P., Golivets, M.,
Hidalgo Aranzamendi, N., Jantke, K., Kajzer-Bonk, J., Kemahlı Aytekin,
M. Ç., & Sutherland, W. J. (2021). Tapping into non-English-language
science for the conservation of global biodiversity. PLoS Biology, 19(10),
e3001296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296
Arnett, J. J. (2009). The neglected 95%, a challenge to psychology’s philosophy
of science. American Psychologist, 64(6), 571–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0016723
Atcheson, S. (2018). Allyship—The key to unlocking the power of diversity.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shereeatcheson/2018/11/30/allyship-
the-key-to-unlocking-the-power-of-diversity/?sh=5a85d2e149c6
Bahji, A., Acion, L., Laslett, A.-M., & Adinoff, B. (2022). Exclusion of the non-
English-speaking world from the scientific literature: Recommendations for
change for addiction journals and publishers. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725221102227
Bloom, L., & Bloom, C. (2020). Sharing power: Power with rather than power
over. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/
stronger-the-broken-places/202001/sharing-power
Bourke, B. (2020). Leaving behind the rhetoric of allyship. Whiteness and
Education, 5(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2020.1839786
BusinessTech. (2021). White South Africans are leaving the country in their
thousands: Stats SA. https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/507034/
white-south-africans-are-leaving-the-country-in-their-thousands-stats-sa/
Chen, C. C., Zhang, A. Y., & Wang, H. (2014). Enhancing the effects of power
sharing on psychological empowerment: The roles of management control
and power distance orientation. Management and Organization Review,
10(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/more.12032
Clay, R. C. (2017). Women outnumber men in psychology, but not in the
field’s top echelons. APA Monitor, 48(7), 18. https://www.apa.org/moni-
tor/2017/07-08/women-psychology
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Park, J. Y. (2014). An incomplete list of eminent psy-
chologists of the modern era. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2, 20–32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000006
Duello, T. M., Rivedal, S., Wickland, C., & Weller, A. (2021). Race and genetics
versus ‘race’ in genetics: A systematic review of the use of African ancestry
in genetic studies. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 9(1), 232–245.
https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoab018
82 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

Eagly, A. H., & Miller, D. I. (2016). Scientific eminence: Where are the women?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 899–904. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1745691616663918
Edelmann, C. M., Boen, F., & Fransen, K. (2020). The power of empowerment:
Predictors and benefits of shared leadership in organizations. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 582894. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582894
Elgendi, M. (2019). Characteristics of a highly cited article: A machine learn-
ing perspective. IEEE Access, 7, 87977–87986. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2019.2925965
Estrellado, J. E., Green, J. M., Shuman, T. J., & Staples, J. (2021). Cross-racial
and intersectional allyship efforts among faculty in a psychology doctoral
program. Research in Human Development, 18(1–2), 29–53. https://doi.org
/10.1080/15427609.2021.1942687
Geiger, V., Delzoppo, C., & Straesser, R. (2022). Supporting English non-dom-
inant language authors’ efforts to publish: Perspectives from the editors-in-
chief of highly recognised journals in Mathematics education. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 111, 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-
10174-0
Griffiths, D., & Prozesky, M. L. C. (2010). The politics of dwelling: Being
White/being South African. Africa Today, 56(4), 22–41. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/10.2979/aft.2010.56.4.22
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L.,
Russell, T. M., Borecky, C. M., McGahhey, R., Powell, J. P., Beavers, J., &
Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.
Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-
2680.6.2.139
Huber, J., Inoua, S., Kerschbamer, R., König-Kersting, C., Palan, S., & Smith,
V. L. (2022). Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 119(41), e2205779119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205779119
Kahalon, R., Klein, V., Ksenofontov, I., Ullrich, J., & Wright, S. C. (2022).
Mentioning the sample’s country in the article’s title leads to bias in research
evaluation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 352–361.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19485506211024036
King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017).
Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over
time. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 3, 1–22. https://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023117738903
Lamont, M. (2019). How to publish, but most importantly, why. Sociologica,
13(1), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/9384
Liu, W. (2017). The changing role of non-English papers in scholarly commu-
nication: Evidence from Web of Science’s three journal citation indexes.
Learned Publishing, 30, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1089
Oppong 83

Malherbe, N., & Ratele, K. (2022). What and for whom is a decolonising
African psychology? Theory & Psychology, 32(1), 116–130. https://doi.
org/10.1177/09593543211027231
Márquez, M. C., & Porras, A. M. (2020). Science communication in multiple
languages is critical to its effectiveness. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 31.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00031
McCoy, D. C., Seiden, J., Cuartas, J., Pisani, L., & Waldman, M. (2022).
Estimates of a multidimensional index of nurturing care in the next 1000
days of life for children in low-income and middle-income countries: A
modelling study. The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health, 6(5), 324–334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00076-1
Mersha, T. B., & Beck, A. F. (2020). The social, economic, political, and genetic
value of race and ethnicity in 2020. Human Genomics, 14, 37. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40246-020-00284-2
Morelli, G., Bard, K., Chaudhary, N., Gottlieb, A., Keller, H., Murray, M.,
Quinn, N., Rosabal-Coto, M., Scheidecker, G., Takada, A., & Vicedo, M.
(2018). Bringing the real world into developmental science: A commentary
on Weber, Fernald, and Diop (2017). Child Development, 89(6), e594–e603.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13115
Nixon, S. A. (2019). The coin model of privilege and critical allyship:
Implications for health. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1637. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12889-019-7884-9
Odeny, B., & Bosurgi, R. (2022). Editorial: Time to end parachute science. PLoS
Medicine, 19(9), e1004099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004099
Oluo, I. (2018). So you want to talk about race. Seal Press.
Oppong, S. (2017). History of psychology in Ghana since 989AD. Psychological
Thought, 10(1), 7–48. https://psyct.swu.bg/index.php/psyct/article/view/195/
html
Oppong, S. (2019a). Doing ‘History of Psychology’ in Ghana: A long, frus-
trating, lonely journey without directional signs but rewarding. HAP:
Newsletter of History of Applied Psychology, 10, 4–8. https://iaapsy.org/
site/assets/files/1820/newsletter_10_june_2019.pdf
Oppong, S. (2019b). Overcoming obstacles to a truly global psychological the-
ory, research and praxis in Africa. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 29(4),
292–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2019.1647497
Oppong, S. (2020a). When something dehumanizes, it is violent but when it
elevates, it is not violent. Theory & Psychology, 30(3), 468–472. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0959354320920942
Oppong, S. (2020b). Towards a model of valued human cognitive abilities: An
African perspective based on a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology,
11, 538072. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.538072
Oppong, S. (2022a). On mainstreaming philosophy of science in psychol-
ogy through ‘psychological theoretics’. Annals of Psychology [Roczniki
Psychologiczne], XXV(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.18290/rpsych2022.0002
84 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

Oppong, S. (2022b). Indigenous psychology in Africa: Centrality of culture, mis-

understandings, and global positioning. Theory & Psychology, 32, 953–973.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221097334
Oppong, S., & Strader, S. (2022). Interventions that matter start with local cul-
tures: Issues and strategies in early childhood care and education inter-
ventions in Africa. An ECCE Project Supported by Spencer Foundation/
Boston College. https://afecn.org/blog/2022/5/23/interventions-that-matter-
start-with-local-cultures-issues-and-strategies-in-early-childhood-care-and-
education-interventions-in-africa
Orelus, P. W. (2012). Being Black and Brown in the 21st century: Challenges
and edagogical possibilities. SAGE Open, 2(4), 1–8. https://journals.sage-
pub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244012464979
Palser, E. R., Lazerwitz, M., & Fotopoulou, A. (2022). Gender and geographical
disparity in editorial boards of journals in psychology and neuroscience.
Nature Neuroscience, 25(3), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-
01012-w
Pickren, W. E., & Taşçı, G. (2022). Indigenous psychologies: Resources for
future histories. In D. McCallum (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of the
history of human sciences (pp. 1–22). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-15-4106-3_80-2
Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of
Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the
human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America (PNAS), 115(45), 11401–11405. www.pnas.org/
cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1721165115
Reason, R. D., & Broido, E. M. (2005). Issues and strategies for social justice
allies (and the student affairs professionals who hope to encourage them).
New Directions for Student Services, 110, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ss.167
Saad, L. F. (2020). Me and White supremacy: How to recognise your privilege,
combat racism and change the world. Quercus Editions.
Sachs, P., & Oppong, S. (2022, February). How to avoid White saviorism in
international relations. A presentation at Day of Dialogue 2022 at Saint
Joseph’s University, 16 February 2022, Online, USA.
Scheidecker, G., Chaudhary, N., Oppong, S., Röttger-Rössler, B., & Keller, H.
(2022). Different is not deficient: Respecting diversity in early childhood
development. The Lancet: Child & Adolescent Health, 6(12), E24–E24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00277-2
Scheidecker, G., Oppong, S., Chaudhary, N., & Keller, H. (2021). How over-
stated scientific claims undermine ethical principles in parenting inter-
ventions. BMJ Global Health, 6(9), e007323. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjgh-2021-007323
Oppong 85

Smith, J. (2018). Parasitic and parachute research in global health. The Lancet:
Global Health, 6(8), e838. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30315-2
Ssentongo, J. S. (2020). ‘Which journal is that?’ Politics of academic promo-
tion in Uganda and the predicament of African publication outlets. Critical
African Studies, 12(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681392.2020.1
788400
Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affect-
ing number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature.
Scientometrics, 107, 1195–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-
2
Talaat, F. M., & Gamel, S. A. (2022). Predicting the impact of no. of authors on
no. of citations of research publications based on neural networks. Journal
of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12652-022-03882-1
Taylor, E., Guy-Walls, P., Wilkerson, P., & Addae, R. (2019). The historical
perspectives of stereotypes on African–American males. Journal of Human
Rights and Social Work, 4, 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-019-
00096-y
Teo, T. (2008). From speculation to epistemological violence in psychology:
A critical-hermeneutic reconstruction. Theory & Psychology, 18(1), 47–67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307086922
Teo, T. (2010). What is epistemological violence in the empirical social sci-
ences? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 295–303. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00265.x
Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95%
revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American
Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622
Umek, W., & Fischer, B. (2020). We should abandon ‘Race’ as a biological
category in biomedical research. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive
Surgery, 26(12), 719–720. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000979
Wagner, C. S., Horlings, E., Whetsell, T. A., Mattsson, P., & Nordqvist, K.
(2015). Do nobel laureates create prize-winning networks? An analy-
sis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine. Plos One, 10(7),
e0134164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134164
Wang, Q. (2016). Why should we all be cultural psychologists? Lessons from the
study of social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal
of the Association for Psychological Science, 11(5), 583–596. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1745691616645552
Weber, A. M., Diop, Y., Gillespie, D., Ratsifandrihamanana, L., & Darmstadt,
G. L. (2021). Africa is not a museum: The ethics of encouraging new par-
enting practices in rural communities in low-income and middle-income
countries. BMJ Global Health, 6(7), e006218. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjgh-2021-006218
86 Psychology and Developing Societies 35(1)

Weber, A., Fernald, A., & Diop, Y. (2017). When cultural norms discourage
talking to babies: Effectiveness of a parenting program in rural Senegal.
Child Development, 88, 1513–1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12882
Yankah, K. (2012). Globalisation and the African scholar. In H. Lauer & K.
Anyidoho (Eds.), Reclaiming the human sciences and humanities through
African perspectives (pp. 51–64). Sub-Saharan Publishers.