The need to incorporate human variation and evolutionary theory in forensic anthropology: A call for reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann H. Ross ◽  
Marin Pilloud
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Forensic Anthropology ◽  
Human Variation

Terminology Used to Describe Human Variation in Forensic Anthropology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin Pilloud ◽  
Cassie Skipper ◽  
SaMoura Horsley ◽  
Alba Craig ◽  
Krista Latham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Anthropology ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Forensic Sciences ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Human Variation ◽  
Systemic Racism ◽  
Ancestry Estimation ◽  
Anthropological Research ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
The U.S

To understand the implications of the forensic anthropological practice of “ancestry” estimation, we explore terminology that has been employed in forensic anthropological research. The goal is to evaluate how such terms can often circulate within social contexts as a result, which may center forensic anthropologists as constituting “race” itself through analysis and categorization. This research evaluates terminology used in anthropological articles of the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 1972 and 2020 (n = 314). Terminology was placed into two categories: classifiers and descriptors. Classifiers were standardized into one of five options: “race,” “ancestry,” “population,” “ethnic,” or “other.” Descriptors included terms used to describe individuals within these classificatory systems. We also compared these terms to those in the NamUs database and the U.S. census. Our results found that the terms “ancestry” and “race” are often conflated and “ancestry” largely supplanted “race” in the 1990s without a similar change in research approach. The NamUs and census terminology are not the same as that used in forensic anthropological research; illustrating a disconnect in the terms used to identify the missing, unidentified, and in social contexts with those used in anthropological research. We provide histories of all of these terms and conclude with suggestions for how to use terminology in the future. It is important for forensic anthropologists to be cognizant of the terms they use in medicolegal contexts, publications, and in public and/or professional spaces. The continued use of misrepresentative and improper language further marginalizes groups and perpetuates oppression rooted in systemic racism.

The (Mis)appropriation of Biological Anthropology in Race Science and the Implications for Forensic Anthropology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donovan Adams ◽  
Marin Pilloud
Keyword(s):  
Racial Differences ◽  
Forensic Anthropology ◽  
Average Power ◽  
Biological Anthropology ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Human Variation ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Race Science ◽  
Dental Traits ◽  
Biological Race

Most biological anthropologists acknowledge that phenotypic human variation is distinct from human race. However, there is the potential for the research on human variation to be (mis)interpreted by the public as a reification of biological races. To explore this possible misuse, this study is a content analysis of articles (n = 1146) in the prominent race science journals Mankind Quarterly; The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies; and The Occidental Quarterly. The goal is to investigate how race science employs research in biological and forensic anthropology to justify arguments. Articles were evaluated according to country affiliation, discipline, data sets, racial/ethnic terminology, position on racial hierarchy, position on racial segregation and eugenics, focus of study, views of scientific community, and the average power index (PI). Additionally, specific examples of (mis)appropriation are highlighted. Though the primary discipline represented in these publications is psychology, biological anthropology maintains a presence. Skeletal and dental traits, genetics, and paleoanthropological data are used to argue for biological racial differences and taxonomic distinctions. The research of forensic ancestry estimation was regularly used to legitimize the concept of biological race. While the PIs of the articles are low, they are present on the internet and circulate within social media. The continued use of biological anthropology to reinforce racial essentialism should force practitioners to question the ethical implications of their research. Finally, we provide discussion regarding shiftsin methodology and terminology to address how biological and forensic anthropologists can rectify the damage this research may directly and indirectly cause.

On WEIRD Anthropologists and Their White Skeletons

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Go ◽  
Nandar Yukyi ◽  
Elaine Chu
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Anthropology ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Human Condition ◽  
Biological Anthropology ◽  
Human Variation ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
The Past ◽  
Certification And Accreditation ◽  
Objective Tool

Most forensic anthropologists and the populations they study are WEIRD—that is, Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. In their interventions into the WEIRD, Clancy and Davis (2019) contend that WEIRD is a euphemism for white and that it is the white, Western European–derived scientists and subjects that skew the predominating narrative of the human condition. While they demonstrate how biological anthropology can decenter the WEIRD, it is fruitful to extend their framework specifically to forensic anthropology. We argue that the scientific enterprise of forensic anthropology is unique in that: (1) it is touted as an objective tool that must operate within medicolegal systems, (2) it involves board certification and accreditation standards, and (3) it holds ancestry and race as core to its practice. In a bibliometric survey of journal articles over the past five years (n = 793), we find that up to 79% of authors originate from WEIRD contexts. In articles specifically studying ancestry, European-derived populations are included 88% of the time as a category for comparison to other groups, while only 12% do not include Europeans. Furthermore, 49% of articles unrelated to ancestry use white subjects solely or in part, reinforcing a historic tendency to measure all human variation against one particular norm. We also find that WEIRD articles receive significantly more recognition than non-WEIRD counterparts. In this reflexive and positional exercise, we hope to make visible how whiteness as WEIRDness informs the history, values, and practices of forensic anthropology on a global scale.

Kornai, Schumpeter, and Economic Theory

2012 ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Maevsky
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Economic System ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Economic Models ◽  
Macro Level ◽  
Mainstream Economic ◽  
Level Of Analysis

The author claims that J. Kornai in his paper Innovation and Dynamism (Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2012. No 4) ignored the understanding of socialism as a specific type of culture and not just as an economic system. He also shows profound differences between Schumpeters theory and mainstream economic models. Evolutionary theory, he claims, may itself become mainstream if Schumpeters legacy is not interpreted straightforwardly and if evolutionary economists consider not only micro-, but also macro-level of analysis in studying macrogenerations of capital of a different age.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document