How EIRD Is Sex Research?: A Commentary and Reanalysis of Klein et al. (2021)

Klein, Savas, and Conley (2021) argued that sexual science is overdependent on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) samples. Though we agree that sexual science needs to increase its generalizability and inclusivity, we describe concerns with their measurement strategy of categorizing samples as WEIRD or Not WEIRD based on the country from which a sample was drawn. Reanalyzing their data with publicly available global metrics of Education, Industrialization, Richness, and Democratic Values (what we refer to as EIRDness), we find (1) EIRDness metrics were not particularly correlated; (2) countries coded as WEIRD by Klein et al. do not appear reliably EIRDer than those that were not; and (3) and categorical measurement models of EIRDness did not support profiles of EIRD and Not EIRD countries. With these limitations in mind, we then express further concerns about the application utility of Klein et al.'s WEIRDness critique, and unintended political implications embedded in its methodology. We conclude by harkening back to critiques of the WEIRD framework, and suggest that the pursuit of a more equitable and just sexual science - which we applaud Klein et al. for pushing our field to consider - may be better served to alternative frameworks for critiquing its sampling practices.

Automated summary

The authors agree that sexual science should be more inclusive and generalizable, but express concerns about the method used to categorize samples as WEIRD or Not WEIRD. By reanalyzing the data, they find that the EIRDness metrics were not strongly correlated and countries classified as WEIRD did not differ significantly from non-WEIRD countries in terms of EIRDness. The authors also raise concerns about the applicability and unintended political implications of the WEIRDness critique.