Search

There is broad discussion of the higher numbers of women in the forensic sciences, particularly when compared to other science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. In this discussion, we focus on forensic anthropology. We begin with an historical overview of the role of women in the discipline; data are then provided that outline the numbers of women scholars and practitioners over time. We then explore the different roles of men and women in regard to leadership positions, professional awards, awarded grant-funding, job hiring trends, presentations at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) annual meeting, and publications in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. While the number of women in forensic anthropology is greatly increasing, the discipline has been slow to also grow the visibility of women in positions of leadership or to honor them with prestigious awards. One reason for this finding may be that women are subjected to bias and harassment, which may cause them to leave forensic anthropology at various points along the way, or lead to their contribution being less valued. These findings are discussed within the context of gendered expectations, and suggestions are provided on how to improve the retention of women as well as to diversify the discipline in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The articles in this special issue grew from a symposium at the 2020 American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Scientific meeting, with the same title as this introduction. The symposium focused on current research and practice of ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology. The symposium concluded with a discussion of the value (or lack thereof) of ancestry estimation as a standard component of the forensic anthropological biological profile. The articles constituting this volume address these questions: What is the current state of race/ancestry estimation in practice? What terminology should we use to describe patterned variation among human populations? How do we sample contemporary populations, and how long are studies built on such samples applicable? What role does genomic data play? Should race/ancestry remain a core component of the biological profile? Further, the issue includes an examination of ancestry estimation in teaching and community outreach. While fine points are still up for debate among these authors, there is general agreement that any future of ancestry estimation must be based in cultural context and evolutionary theory, be sensitive to the importance of terminology employed, and be iteratively reflexive about the relative costs and benefits of this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This project examined the salaries of forensic anthropologists in the United States. Additionally, the salaries of forensic anthropologists employed in academia were compared to those of other academic anthropologists. The goal of this project was to develop baseline data in terms of salaries for forensic anthropologists while also examining various factors that may affect forensic anthropology salaries. Salary information is important because salary transparency narrows wage disparities, reduces favoritism and discrimination, increases the bargaining power of employees, and potentially causes employers to focus more on salary differentiation in terms of productivity and seniority; essentially, wage transparency generates greater equity among employees (Estlund 2014). In order to examine salaries in forensic anthropology, internet search engines were used to find open-access salary data for individuals currently listed as non-student members of the anthropology section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and/or the American Board of Forensic Anthropology. All variables were analyzed using random forest models. Results found that in all models, there were no differences in salary between men and women. Further, no significant differences were found between anthropology subfields in academia. Importantly, years since terminal degree was the most important variable affecting salary in all models, with academic rank being the most important variable for individuals employed in the academic sector. Further, these results demonstrate inconsistencies in pay for forensic anthropologists, especially for those working in the applied sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]