Cape Town – The Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) has backed calls for the controversial study conducted by UCT’s Professor Nicoli Nattrass to be retracted and for her unconditional apology.
This comes after the SA Journal of Science (SAJS), which featured the two-page paper titled “Why are black South African students less likely to consider studying biological sciences?" on May 19, said on Friday it would not retract the piece, but would compile a special issue for the publishing of rebuttals of the work, as well as provide an opportunity for response by Nattrass.
Nattrass speculates in the paper that black students are indisposed to studying biological sciences because of their “materialism and culture”.
This was met with outrage from the Black Academic Caucus (BAC) and other academics who called it biased and racist.
Nattrass defended her paper, saying UCT did a hatchet job in response to political pressure from BAC and student activity after the institution distanced itself and announced an investigation was under way.
The PsySSA said there were a number of fatal flaws with the research and commentary, and responses offered by Nattrass subsequent to the public outrage levelled at her work.
“This was a missed opportunity for Prof Nattrass to engage more reflexively with her contribution to a publication that has not met the minimum standards of ethical nor rigorous scholarship and, at its core, is being criticised substantively for its implicit racial stereotypes that are embedded in the racialised logic of how she both conceptualised the study and interpreted the research results.”
The PsySSA said it was telling, unfortunate and ironic that the entire matter played out against the backdrop of the global Black Lives Matter protests.
“PsySSA places on record that we reject any attempt to reduce the dignity of black lives and to reinscribe colonial and racist tropes into academia. Professor Nattrass must unconditionally apologise for her published commentary.
“The relevant UCT structures need to review its policies and practices related to the vetting of research conducted by staff and students, and determine what measures will be put in place to ensure that future studies do not have a similar outcome,” PsySSA said.
The SA Journal of Science meanwhile said it welcomed the public debates that have emerged in response to the article.
“Given that the next available issue for responses to the article would be published only in September 2020, the SAJS has decided that the urgency of the matter requires publication of a special compilation issue in early July that gives space to rebuttals in the form of social and intellectual criticism of the published work with an opportunity for response by the author.”
SAJS’s editor-in-chief Jane Carruthers and the Editorial Advisory Board chairperson Johann Mouton said they would review its existing policy for publishing "commentaries" that do not require peer review.
UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola said the matter was receiving attention at the highest level.