Terminology Used to Describe Human Variation in Forensic Anthropology

Abstract

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.

If you see something, say something: Structural vulnerability data and reporting in forensic anthropology casework

“…Because ancestry estimations can only be validated when a victim has been identified, it is understood amongst anthropologists that practical accuracy of biological profile methods often cannot be determined. Moreover, morphoscopic traits, or craniometrics for that matter, will not provide phenotypic information which is truly the core question for most law enforcement investigators when inquiring about anthropological ancestry estimation [ 36 ]. This plays a definitive role in societal understandings of race as law enforcement, media, and the public reason that skeletal “ancestry” estimation must tell us critical phenotypic information.…”

Investigating identification disparities in forensic anthropology casework

“…Other recent works [10,11,[29][30][31][32] recommend moving towards a practice of estimating population affinity, which advances beyond continental allocations often associated with ancestry estimations, and incorporates a comprehensive understanding of population histories as well as ongoing dynamics (sociopolitical, economic) that can influence local patterns of biological variation. In turn, this approach considers how categories and terms used to describe the reference samples represent social meaning relevant to local communities [17,30,31]. Several studies propose that current methodological approaches and reference sample representation may be impacting the accuracy rates of ancestry estimation, and suggest that increasing diversity of reference samples would better serve the forensic anthropological casework demographics [22,23].…”

“…While providing different viewpoints, both Bethard and DiGangi [ 1 ] and Stull et al [ 2 ] did align regarding the need for data-driven research to investigate each others’ proposed perspectives. This conversation garnered national attention and laid the groundwork for recent critical discussions and research on issues of diversity and inclusion [ 3 – 6 ], the perception and framing of race and ancestry [ 7 – 12 ], as well as gender and biological sex [ 13 – 15 ], and reexamination and improvement of the language used in our research [ 16 , 17 ]. As forensic anthropology works to critically engage with concepts beyond the science itself and associated methodological approaches, it is essential to recognize that this discipline is part of the larger community of death investigation, for which similar conversations are rarely happening (with a few exceptions, see [ 18 , 19 ]), yet are equally necessary.…”

A conversation on redefining ethical considerations in forensic anthropology

“…Writing in complex ways prevents people outside of the field from understanding research (the argument can also be made that some papers are written in a way that is unnecessarily complicated even among anthropologists). In addition to the ongoing discussion regarding terminology (Maier, Craig, and Adams 2021;Pilloud et al 2021;Ross and Pilloud 2021;Tallman, Parr, and Winburn 2021), we must also critically examine our statistical choices, methodology, and the concept of racialization, which have particular relevance to forensic practice (Hochman 2021).…”