And students the social and behavioural sciences hughes

About This Issue

As Acting Editor of PACJA, I have been honoured to support the journal through this transitional time. I thank former Editor Rhys Price-Robertson for his many pivotal contributions to the journal and for his gracious support during my time as Acting Editor. I also wish to express my appreciation for the PACFA Research Committee and PACJA’s Editorial Board members.

The Shift to APA 7th Edition Publication Standards

Midway through the editorial process for this November issue, the Research Committee and PACFA approved my request for the journal to shift from editorial standards from the 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association
(APA) (2010) to APA 7th edition (2020). Furthermore, although the APA 6th edition already contained a section on reducing bias in language, PACJA had focused on the sections for referencing, paper format, and mechanics of style; with the shift to 7th edition, PACJA will prioritise more consistent adherence to APA recommendations on reducing bias in language.

APA Style, sometimes called “APA Format”, is the most widely used standard for
professional communications among researchers, practitioners, educators, and students in the social and behavioural sciences (Hughes et al., 2010). APA Style is the standard for writing in the counselling profession (Bradley et al., 2020). In addition, APA Style has become ubiquitous in the fields of nursing and education and is recognised in English composition textbooks (Madigan et al., 1995). APA Style might also have some strategic potential for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander healing practitioners, to the extent that APA Style grants professional recognition and credibility within a mental health sector built around colonising practices and dominated by English-speaking, Anglo Australian norms.

APA Style addresses all aspects of professional communication and manuscript
preparation, with particular emphasis on publication ethics and standards. APA provides nuanced guidelines for word choices that reduce bias in language. The APA Publication Manual both promotes and reflects disciplinary norms, to such an extent that it has been critiqued and lauded as both a “bible” (Walsh-Bowers, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1999) and as a form of epistemology (Madigan et al., 1995; see also Teo, 2008, for a discussion of epistemic violence in negative constructions of the “Other” in psychological research). Critiques of these standards have contributed to advances in subsequent editions (e.g., Ansara & Hegarty, 2012, 2014, 2016; APA, 1977; Gannon et al., 1992; Hegarty & Buechel, 2006). However, as Russo (1999) explained, additional measures beyond these critiques have been necessary to reduce sexist bias in research contexts and processes (e.g., Denmark et al., 1988; McHugh et al., 1986; and Stark-Adamec & Kimball, 1984).

science periodicals. The content focused on the general form of manuscripts (i.e., length, physical characteristics, headings, etc.), the subdivision and articulation of topics, references and footnotes, and tabular matter and illustrations.

These instructions contained a notable diatribe that seems almost comedically acerbic today. It might seem surprisingly harsh and insulting to contemporary readers:

By 1983, two new sections (pp. 43-49) were added to the Publication Manual (APA, 1983): Guidelines for Nonsexist Language in APA Journals, which was developed from the standalone document critiquing the inadequate coverage of this issue in previous editions (APA, 1977) and similar critiques, and Avoiding Ethnic Bias. The 3rd edition

4/12

The American Psychological Association emphasizes the need to talk about all people with inclusivity and respect. Writers using APA Style must strive to use language that is free of bias and avoid perpetuating prejudicial beliefs or demeaning attitudes in their writing. Just as you have learned to check what you write for spelling, grammar, and wordiness, practice reading your work for bias (APA, 2019).

APA explicitly treats “reading your work for bias” as pivotal and fundamental. It is clear from APA’s own description of APA Style that reducing bias is a core aim in professional communications.

The gender section reflects growing international consensus on respectful and inclusive practices to prevent sexist and cisgenderist language. Such language can negatively impact women and men of cisgender and transgender experience, non-binary
people, and people whose lived experiences and identities include other forms of gender diversity around the world. Gender identities such as genderqueer, gender-fluid, and agender (non-gendered) are explicitly recognised. Authors are advised to avoid
terminology and research practices that assume gender is always binary and that assume participants are of cisgender experience unless otherwise specified. APA recommends that authors provide an option for participants to self-report whether they are trans. While recognising that some people self-identify as trans people, APA suggests that
researchers should also provide options for people who identify as simply women or men (not as trans women or trans men) to have their trans history or lived experience
recognised.

6/12

are acceptable. However, ‘African American’ should not be used as an umbrella term for people of African ancestry worldwide because it obscures other ethnicities or national origins, such as Nigerian, Kenyan, Jamaican, or Bahamian” (APA, 2020, Section 5.7). In another example, the Indigenous Peoples Around the World sub-section includes Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia. APA clarifies that the correct spelling of “Māori” or“the Māori people” uses the diacritical macron over the “a”, mentions variation in terms used by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, and instructs authors to “refer to specific groups when people use these terms to refer to themselves (e.g., Anangu Pitjantjatjara, Arrernte)” (APA, 2020, Section 5.7).

In the 7th edition, APA acknowledges the evolving diversity in linguistic preferences related to disability and neurodiversity. The 7th edition recognises that some groups intentionally capitalise their identity to promote unity and community, such as the Deaf community. APA notes that, although some people consider lowercase “deaf”
inappropriate, not all people with hearing loss identify as Deaf. APA accepts that autistic people often prefer to be described using identity-first language instead of person-first language (e.g., “autistic person”, not “person with autism”), and that, depending on the context, either or both types of language could be appropriate. To determine which language to use, APA encourages professionals to “use the label that the community uses, even when that label is adjectival” (APA, 2020, Section 5.2). APA confirms that matters of style (e.g., referencing, paper format, and mechanics of style) are less important than people’s own preferred language, specifying that “language should be selected with the understanding that the expressed preference of people with disabilities regarding identification supersedes matters of style” (APA, 2020, Section 5.4, emphasis added; see Dunn & Andrews, 2015, for further guidance). As APA explains, “honoring the preference of the group is not only a sign of professional awareness and respect for any disability group but also a way to offer solidarity” (APA, 2020, Section 5.4). APA further encourages authors who are not sure which language participants prefer to “seek guidance from self-advocacy groups or other stakeholders specific to a group of people”or, when working directly with participants, “use the language they use to describe themselves.” In other words, in the event of a conflict between bias reduction and matters of style, APA considers diversity, inclusivity, and bias reduction superior in importance to all other issues discussed in the Publication Manual.

482). The authors expressed confidence that professionals would “move quickly and proficiently to implement this recommendation” (p. 482). I have similar confidence in you, dear readers, that our professional community can make the changes needed to join with this international and collective effort to adopt the recommendations in the 7th edition of the Publication Manual. Respecting the dignity and inherent worth of all people—particularly those to whom mental health professions have historically denied this respect—is not only conventional but imperative to the preservation of our professional ethics.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.).

American Psychological Association Council of Editors. (1952). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association [Supplement]. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 389-49.

Ansara, Y. G., & Hegarty, P. (2012). Cisgenderism in psychology: Pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008. Psychology and Sexuality, 3(2), 137-160.

Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. (2021). Diversity Accountability Index for Journals (DAI-J): Increasing awareness and establishing accountability across psychology journals. PsyArXiv.

Buchanan, N. T., & Wiklund, L. O. (2020). Why clinical science must change or die: Integrating intersectionality and social justice. Women & Therapy, 43(3-4), 309-329.

Dunn, D. S., & Andrews, E. E. (2015). Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language. American
Psychologist, 70(3), 255-264.

Gannon, L., Luchetta, T., Rhodes, K., Pardie, L., & Segrist, D. (1992). Sex bias in psychological research: Progress or complacency? American Psychologist, 47(3), 389-396.

Madigan, R., Johnson, S., & Linton, P. (1995). The language of psychology: APA style as

McHugh, M. C., Koeske, R. D., & Frieze, I. H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research: A guide for researchers. American Psychologist, 41(8), 879-890.

Stark-Adamec, C. I., & Kimball, M. (1984). Science free of sexism: A psychologist’s guide to the conduct of nonsexist research. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 25(1), 23–34.

11/12

Yanchar, S. C., Slife, B. D., & Warne, R. (2008). Critical thinking as disciplinary

12/12