The role of case studies in recent paleopathological literature: An argument for continuing relevance.

OBJECTIVE: To critically examine the role that case studies play in recent paleopathological literature, by evaluating their frequency of publication, academic impact, and the public engagement they generate. MATERIALS: Articles published in International Journal of Paleopathology between 2011 and 2018 (N = 377). METHODS: Articles were coded as case studies, population studies, methodological studies, or reviews. Case studies were coded as cultural practices, differential diagnosis, historical, or methodological/theoretical. We utilized bibliometric analysis to assess academic impact and altmetric analysis to evaluate public engagement. RESULTS: Case studies continue to be the most frequently published, but least frequently cited, article type. There are no significant differences in public engagement data between article types. Methodological/theoretical case studies have the most academic impact. Differential diagnosis case studies have the least academic impact and generate the least public engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The case study genre includes a variety of approaches, some of which hold significant potential for contributing to the discipline of paleopathology and beyond. SIGNIFICANCE: This study updates Mays' (2012b) citation analysis, pioneers the use of altmetric data to analyze public engagement with paleopathological publications, and identifies less productive approaches and areas of heightened relevance in the case study genre. LIMITATIONS: Publications in only one journal were analyzed. Only one source was utilized for citation data (Google Scholar) and one source for altmetric data (PlumX). SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: Expanding the granular analysis of case studies piloted here to additional journals and/or citation indexes to enlarge the sample size and provide keener insights.

Twenty-first century bioarchaeology: Taking stock and moving forward.

This article presents outcomes from a Workshop entitled "Bioarchaeology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward," which was held at Arizona State University (ASU) on March 6-8, 2020. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the School of Human Evolution and Social Change (ASU), and the Center for Bioarchaeological Research (CBR, ASU), the Workshop's overall goal was to explore reasons why research proposals submitted by bioarchaeologists, both graduate students and established scholars, fared disproportionately poorly within recent NSF Anthropology Program competitions and to offer advice for increasing success. Therefore, this Workshop comprised 43 international scholars and four advanced graduate students with a history of successful grant acquisition, primarily from the United States. Ultimately, we focused on two related aims: (1) best practices for improving research designs and training and (2) evaluating topics of contemporary significance that reverberate through history and beyond as promising trajectories for bioarchaeological research. Among the former were contextual grounding, research question/hypothesis generation, statistical procedures appropriate for small samples and mixed qualitative/quantitative data, the salience of Bayesian methods, and training program content. Topical foci included ethics, social inequality, identity (including intersectionality), climate change, migration, violence, epidemic disease, adaptability/plasticity, the osteological paradox, and the developmental origins of health and disease. Given the profound changes required globally to address decolonization in the 21st century, this concern also entered many formal and informal discussions.

Exploring the social construction of disability: An application of the bioarchaeology of personhood model to a pathological skeleton from ancient Bahrain.

Considering that paleopathology is the study of ancient disease, the social correlates of disabling conditions in the past have been undertheorized by bioarchaeologists and paleopathologists. I offer the Bioarchaeology of Personhood as a model that, when paired with traditional analytical techniques, can enhance bioarchaeologists' ability both to explore the social construction of disability and to engage with an interested public. This model is based upon five tenets: (1) modern Western constructs of identity and individuality are not universal; (2) personhood is comprised of many facets, which are entangled with one another and are prioritized situationally; (3) a longitudinal "life course" paradigm is well-suited to the bioarchaeological investigation of personhood; (4) personhood can extend beyond the biological lifespan; (5) bioarchaeologists should be open to alternative modes of interpretation and outreach. Its strengths include the use of multiple lines of interdisciplinary evidence, accessibility to diverse academic and public audiences, effectiveness as a pedagogical tool, and articulation with other theoretical frameworks. The utility of the Bioarchaeology of Personhood model is demonstrated with a case study from ancient Bahrain, in which the embodied life course of a young woman with disabilities is reconstructed via fictive narrative.