Race, Rare Genetic Variants, and the Science of Human Difference in the Post‐Genomic Age

Diversity of Research Participant Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Publications in 2020

Purpose

One manifestation of systemic inequities in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) is the chronic underreporting and underrepresentation of sex, gender, race, and ethnicity in research. The present study characterized recent demographic reporting practices and representation of participants across CSD research.

Methods

We systematically reviewed and extracted key reporting and participant data from empirical studies conducted in the United States (US) with human participants published in the year 2020 in journals by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA; k = 407 articles comprising a total n = 80,058 research participants, search completed November 2021). Sex, gender, race, and ethnicity were operationalized per National Institutes of Health guidelines (National Institutes of Health, 2015a, 2015b).

Results

Sex or gender was reported in 85.5% of included studies; race was reported in 33.7%; and ethnicity was reported in 13.8%. Sex and gender were clearly differentiated in 3.4% of relevant studies. Where reported, median proportions for race and ethnicity were significantly different from the US population, with underrepresentation noted for all non-White racial groups and Hispanic participants. Moreover, 64.7% of studies that reported sex or gender and 67.2% of studies that reported race or ethnicity did not consider these respective variables in analyses or discussion.

Conclusion

At present, research published in ASHA journals frequently fails to report key demographic data summarizing the characteristics of participants. Moreover, apparent gaps in representation of minoritized racial and ethnic groups threaten the external validity of CSD research and broader health care equity endeavors in the US. Although our study is limited to a single year and publisher, our results point to several steps for readers that may bring greater accountability, consistency, and diversity to the discipline.

Deconstructing Eurocentrism in skin pigmentation research via the incorporation of diverse populations and theoretical perspectives

The evolution of skin pigmentation has been shaped by numerous biological and cultural shifts throughout human history. Vitamin D is considered a driver of depigmentation evolution in humans, given the deleterious health effects associated with vitamin D deficiency, which is often shaped by cultural factors. New advancements in genomics and epigenomics have opened the door to a deeper exploration of skin pigmentation evolution in both contemporary and ancient populations. Data from ancient Europeans has offered great context to the spread of depigmentation alleles via the evaluation of migration events and cultural shifts that occurred during the Neolithic. However, novel insights can further be gained via the inclusion of diverse ancient and contemporary populations. Here we present on how potential biases and limitations in skin pigmentation research can be overcome with the integration of interdisciplinary data that includes both cultural and biological elements, which have shaped the evolutionary history of skin pigmentation in humans.

Words matter: The language of difference in human genetics

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.

The constraints of racialization: How classification and valuation hinder scientific research on human variation

Human biological variation has historically been studied through the lens of racialization. Despite a general shift away from the use of overt racial terminologies, the underlying racialized frameworks used to describe and understand human variation still remain. Even in relatively recent anthropological and biomedical work, we can observe clear manifestations of such racial thinking. This paper shows how classification and valuation are two specific processes which facilitate racialization and hinder attempts to move beyond such frameworks. The bias induced by classification distorts descriptions of phenotypic variation in a way that erroneously portrays European populations as more variable than others. Implicit valuation occurs in tandem with classification and produces narratives of superiority/inferiority for certain phenotypic variants without an objective biological basis. The bias of racialization is a persistent impediment stemming from the inheritance of scientific knowledge developed under explicitly racial paradigms. It is also an internalized cognitive distortion cultivated through socialization in a world where racialization is inescapable. Though undeniably challenging, this does not present an insurmountable barrier, and this bias can be mitigated through the critical evaluation of past work, the active inclusion of marginalized perspectives, and the direct confrontation of institutional structures enforcing racialized paradigms.

Typologies, Typifications, and Types

This article positions types at the center of anthropological knowledge production, considering them both from the abstract, analytical perspective of expert typologies and from the tacit, phenomenological perspective of everyday practices of typification. Proposing what an “anthropology of types,” broadly construed and across these two scales, might look like, I examine the histories and uses of types and typological thinking in anthropology, highlighting the empirical, analytical, methodological, ethical, and political questions they have raised. I then describe the phenomenological foundations of typification, how sociocultural and linguistic anthropologists have approached it, and the accompanying challenges related to translation and representation. Finally, I review ethnographies of expert practices of type production, tracing the circuit of typification–typology–type and back again to show how forms of expertise institutionalize lay knowledge in ways that further solidify the misrecognition of types as natural, and examine visual and arts-based interventions that draw attention to these processes.