Biological Anthropology studies the variation and evolution of living humans, non-human primates, and extinct ancestors and for this reason the field should be in an ideal position to attract scientists from a variety of backgrounds who have different views and experiences. However, the origin and history of the discipline, anecdotal observations, self-reports, and recent surveys suggest the field has significant barriers to attracting scholars of color. For a variety of reasons, including quantitative research that demonstrates that diverse groups do better science, the discipline should strive to achieve a more diverse composition. Here we discuss the background and underpinnings of the current and historical dearth of diversity in Biological Anthropology in the U.S. specifically as it relates to representation of minority and underrepresented minority (URM) (or racialized minority) scholars. We trace this lack of diversity to underlying issues of recruitment and retention in the STEM sciences generally, to the history of Anthropology particularly around questions of race-science, and to the absence of Anthropology at many minority-serving institutions, especially HBCUs, a situation that forestalls pathways to the discipline for many minority students. The AAPA Committee on Diversity (COD) was conceived as a means of assessing and improving diversity within the discipline, and we detail the history of the COD since its inception in 2006. Prior to the COD there were no systematic AAPA efforts to consider ethnoracial diversity in our ranks and no programming around questions of diversity and inclusion. Departmental survey data collected by the COD indicate that undergraduate majors in Biological Anthropology are remarkably diverse, but that the discipline loses these scholars between undergraduate and graduate school and systematically up rank. Our analysis of recent membership demographic survey data (2014 and 2017) shows Biological Anthropology to have less ethnoracial diversity than even the affiliated STEM disciplines of Biology and Anatomy; nearly 87% of AAPA members in the United States identify as white and just 7% as URM scholars. These data also suggest that the intersection of race and gender significantly influence scholarly representation. In response to these data, we describe a substantial body of programs that have been developed by the COD to improve diversity in our ranks. Through these programs we identify principal concerns that contribute to the loss of scholars of color from the discipline at different stages in their careers, propose other directions that programming for recruitment should take, and discuss the beginnings of how to develop a more inclusive discipline at all career stages.
I think this might present a problem if we want to examine African history from the standpoint of biological anthropology, among other sciences.
For that matter, considering how many Black people all over the world are passionate about ancient Egypt, Egyptology as a discipline (both within and without Egypt itself) could stand to let in more of them.
posted
^ The peculiar thing about this is that in recent years Biological Anthropologists have repeatedly written that "race" is a social construct, not legitimate biology Yet in this article terms "white" and "black" are repeatedly used
the article states
quote: The AAPA has strongly and rightly promoted the scientific evidence showing there to be no basis to biological race (see AAPA, 1996; Edgar & Hunley, 2009 and papers therein); however, there is no question that social constructs of race and “racial experience” influence real outcomes for individuals (e.g., Benn Torres and Torres Colon, 2015; Gravlee, Non, & Mulligan, 2009; Solórzano & Ornelas, 2002). Given real concerns that the use of these socially constructed categories by Biological Anthropologists may inadvertently suggest our support for the reality of “biological race” there has, until recently, been no move to survey the discipline. Unfortunately, this has left us with the inability to quantify representation in our discipline relative to other sciences, the academy, or the U.S. population and hindered our ability to make an effective case for intervention or to engage visibly in efforts to promote ethnic diversity.
It is quite looney for biological anthropologists to say "there to be no basis to biological race" and then proceed to do a racial analysis
Look at how they present this:
quote:Given real concerns that the use of these socially constructed categories by Biological Anthropologists may inadvertently suggest our support for the reality of “biological race” there has, until recently, been no move to survey the discipline. Unfortunately, this has left us with the inability to quantify representation
^^ to break this down, what they are saying is
we are biological anthropologists and "race" is made up, not real
BUT we need to pretend race is real so we can see how many people of each of this imaginary thing our society calls "race", how many of each of these races are in our field
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic