NLP needs Diversity outside of 'Diversity'

Building language technologies and conducting NLP research for low-resource languages---particularly when led by native speakers or involving participatory research practices---are often framed as means of addressing inequality, serving local communities, and, at times, contributing to decolonisation. In this paper, we examine recently published NLP and ML papers, focusing on the narratives used to characterise multilinguality, low-resource languages, and underrepresented cultures. We propose a framework for analysing research framings and identify recurring rhetorical patterns that may hinder accountability and constrain equitable knowledge production for---and by---underserved communities. We further assess the evidential basis of assertions regarding community benefit and find that such statements are often weakly supported or left unsubstantiated. Although community ownership and participation are frequently presented as key objectives, our analysis, supported by statistics from the ACL Anthology, suggests that research outputs more often prioritise resource creation and benchmarking---important but distinct goals---over evidence of broader structural change. We conclude by offering practical recommendations to help authors, reviewers, and readers critically assess these assertions and avoid potentially misleading framings.

There is growing evidence that data diversity is crucial for developing fair and robust NLP models. However, current approaches to measure diversity remain inconsistent and fragmented: While there exist a number of tools for measuring the lexical diversity of texts, researchers lack standardized tools for quantifying diversity based on embeddings. Embedding-based diversity measures are highly flexible: They work with any embedding model and any data that can be embedded, and are thus applicable to many notions of diversity. With emb-diversity, we provide a comprehensive embedding-based diversity measurement tool, spanning a broad range of measures. We demonstrate its potential for several use cases: measuring the stylistic, semantic, language and speaker diversity of datasets. https://github.com/nlpsoc/emb-diversity/

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has traditionally been published in its core disciplinary venues like ACL. However, advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to a blurring of the disciplinary lines between NLP and general Machine Learning (ML), with authors regularly publishing in venues from both fields. Here, we ask whether the disciplinary center of gravity is shifting. Using NLP research published from 2010 to 2026 and studies of both established and new authors, we find that a migration is taking place. First, comparing the pre- and post-LLM eras, established authors lost 19.2pp of share at flagship *ACL main-conference tracks while gaining 14.8pp in the newer Findings tracks, and general ML venues rose 8.6pp, even when adjusting for parallel growth in the fields. Second, among newer authors who debut with at least three first-author NLP-topic papers, the share whose work appears mostly at *ACL venues fell from 84% (2019) to 74% (2024), while the share appearing mostly at general ML venues rose from 5% to 21%. Using causal inference techniques, we estimate that these general ML venues confer a significant citation premium, which influences venue selection. Together, these results point to a significant shift in where NLP research is published.