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]

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 shifts in methodology and terminology to address how biological and forensic anthropologists can rectify the damage this research may directly and indirectly cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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]

The qualifications for a discipline are composed of the education and/or training requirements considered necessary to provide individuals with adequate knowledge to perform discipline-related tasks, including certification or licensing (Passalacqua & Pilloud 2018). Currently there are few available guidelines and no standards for the qualifications of a forensic anthropologist. To examine the qualifications of current practicing forensic anthropologists and to generate consensus-based criteria for the development of standards for qualifications for forensic anthropology, the authors generated an electronic survey. Results demonstrate that the qualifications of practicing forensic anthropologists are varied and do not always align with the qualifications currently outlined by the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology or the American Board of Forensic Anthropology. These findings do not mean these individuals are unqualified to practice forensic anthropology, but rather that there is currently little oversight or assistance for those individuals who do not fit the current models of perceived qualification, and no means of determining who does or does not have the adequate knowledge to perform forensic anthropological analyses. As forensic anthropology grows as a discipline, the standardization of qualifications will become increasingly important, both in terms of setting requirements for education and training and for the certification of practitioners. Further, there need to be clearer standards for education and training, which are currently lacking in the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of dental morphology to estimate ancestry has become more prevalent within forensic anthropology, and several new methods have been published (e.g., Edgar 2005, 2013; Irish 2015; Scott et al. 2018). While these methods represent great advances, they are lacking in modern Asian reference samples. As such, they may be unable to adequately differentiate Asian individuals from those who express similar dental morphology (i.e., Hispanics and Native Americans). This study explores dental morphological population variation of various skeletal samples in an effort to suggest areas of improvement for methods of ancestry estimation. Biological distance analyses were conducted on dental morphological data from a Mexican skeletal collection housed at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (n = 88), Hispanic dental casts housed at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque (n = 71), a Japanese skeletal sample at Chiba University in Chiba, Japan (n = 96), and a comparative global data set collected by T. Hanihara. Clear patterns emerge that align with the Sinodont/Sundadont dental variation, where Native American samples cluster with East Asian samples (Sinodont) and Southeast Asian groups cluster with Melanesia, Papua New Guinea, and Australia (Sundadont). The two Hispanic samples are found to be distinct from these Asian samples and cluster with Macro- European and West African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Asian and Asian-derived populations and underscore the need for appropriate references samples in method creation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few sex estimation methods have been developed for East Asian populations in forensic anthropology. Furthermore, odontometric techniques, particularly including cervical measurements, are underutilized by forensic anthropologists in the construction of the biological profile. This research evaluates the use of logistic regression and linear discriminant function analysis with standard crown and cervical measurements of the dentition for the estimation of sex in a contemporary Japanese sample (n = 97). While logistic regression produced equations with the highest overall correct classification rates, discriminant function equations resulted in less of a sex bias of correct estimation. Cervical and buccolingual measurements were most effective at correct allocation of individuals. This study successfully demonstrates the applicability of odontometrics, particularly cervical measurements, in the estimation of sex and the necessity for population-specific methods. [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]