Search

The intensifying pace of research based on cross-cultural studies in the social sciences necessitates a discussion of the unique challenges of multi-sited research. Given an increasing demand for social scientists to expand their data collection beyond WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) populations, there is an urgent need for transdisciplinary conversations on the logistical, scientific and ethical considerations inherent to this type of scholarship. As a group of social scientists engaged in cross-cultural research in psychology and anthropology, we hope to guide prospective cross-cultural researchers through some of the complex scientific and ethical challenges involved in such work: (a) study site selection, (b) community involvement and (c) culturally appropriate research methods. We aim to shed light on some of the difficult ethical quandaries of this type of research. Our recommendation emphasizes a community-centred approach, in which the desires of the community regarding research approach and methodology, community involvement, results communication and distribution, and data sharing are held in the highest regard by the researchers. We argue that such considerations are central to scientific rigour and the foundation of the study of human behaviour.

The article discusses the second edition of the book "Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You: Busting Myths about Human Nature" by Agustín Fuentes. The book aims to debunk myths about race, aggression, and sex by providing scientific theories and evidence. Fuentes explores his own positionality and how it has influenced his work, and he argues that these myths about naturalness and biology contribute to social inequities. The book is organized into two parts, with the first part providing foundational knowledge and the second part addressing specific myths about human behavior. While the book effectively challenges these myths, it could benefit from further analysis of power dynamics and societal hierarchies. Overall, the book serves as a call to action to approach social issues with a nuanced understanding of cultural and biological complexity. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives Although children are typically raised in familial care networks, not all children have access to kin. Here, I investigate the growth measures of children living in two different residential contexts in Jamaica: institutional care settings and familial homes. Methods This cross-sectional study sampled individuals ranging from 5-18 years old, residing in children's homes ( N = 113 participants) and familial homes ( N = 103 participants). Anthropometric measurements and interview data were collected from all participants. Height for age z-scores (ZHFA) and weight for age z-scores (ZWFA) were calculated using the 2007 WHO standards. Body fat was estimated from tricep and suprailiac skinfold thickness. Between group comparisons were completed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with age included as a covariate. Significance was accepted at P ≤ 0.05. Results Context was more predictive of condition among children than adolescents. Both girls and boys ages 5-11 years living with family members had higher mean height and weight for age, and summed skinfold thickness measures, than their peers living in children's homes. Fewer correlations between home setting and growth measurements were found among 12-18 year olds. Notably, although children were randomly assigned to children's homes, boys in a single-sex institution did not differ in growth measurements from boys living with family members. Conclusions Younger children who lived with family members had better growth measurements than their peers living in institutional settings. However, improved growth measures for children living in one home were correlated to nonconventional counseling practices, and nutritional policies that mirror some aspects of familial care. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 28:493-502, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the late 1990s, scholars have advocated for the adoption of political-economic approaches in biological anthropology. Despite this, the explicit application of these perspectives remains relatively rare. In this paper we argue for greater investment in this field of inquiry and advocate linking evolutionary-developmental and political-economic approaches to the study of human biology. We begin by discussing the historical development of human biology and the emergence of biocultural approaches in biological and medical anthropology. We then discuss evolutionary approaches grounded in phenotypic plasticity as an important framework for linking culture and biology. Finally, we consider the implications of culture theory based in political economy for building and expanding biocultural models. In particular, we examine the importance of inequality in structuring access to the means of cultural production and the creation of self-reinforcing norms. We finish with a discussion of the implications of these conclusions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]