Terminology in ecology and evolutionary biology disproportionately harms marginalized groups

<b>Abstract</b><br/><p>The discipline of ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) has long grappled with issues of inclusivity and representation, particularly for individuals with systematically excluded and marginalized backgrounds or identities. For example, significant representation disparities still persist that disproportionately affect women and gender minorities; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; individuals with disabilities; and people who are LGBTQIA+. Recent calls for action have urged the EEB community to directly address issues of representation, inclusion, justice, and equity. One aspect of this endeavor is to examine the use of EEB’s discipline-specific language and terminology, which may have the potential to perpetuate unjust systems and isolate marginalized groups. Through a mixed-methods survey, we examined how members of the EEB community perceive discipline-specific terminology, including how they believe it can be harmful and which terms they identified as problematic. Of the 795 survey respondents, we found that almost half agreed that there are harmful terms in EEB, and that many individuals from marginalized groups responded that they have been harmed by such terminology. Most of the terms identified as harmful relate to race, ethnicity, and immigration; sex and gender; geopolitical hierarchies; and historical violence. Our findings suggest there is an urgent need for EEB to confront and critically reassess its discipline-specific terminology. By identifying harmful terms and their impacts, our study represents a crucial first step toward dismantling deeply rooted exclusionary structures in EEB. We encourage individuals, communities, and institutions to use these findings to reevaluate language used in disciplinary research, teaching and mentoring, manuscripts, and professional societies. Rectifying current harms in EEB will help promote a more just and inclusive discipline.</p>

摘要
生态学与进化生物学（ecology and evolutionary biology, EEB）长期以来始终面临包容性与代表性不足的难题，尤其针对那些被系统性排除、处于边缘化处境的群体或身份持有者。例如，仍存在显著的代表性差距，这种差距对女性与性别少数群体、黑人、原住民及有色人种、残障人士以及LGBTQIA+群体造成了不成比例的影响。近期的行动呼吁敦促EEB群体直面与代表性、包容性、公正性及公平性相关的各类议题。此项工作的其中一环，便是审视EEB专属学科语言与术语的使用现状——这类语言或有可能巩固不公正的制度体系，并加剧对边缘化群体的孤立状态。通过混合方法调查（mixed-methods survey），我们探究了EEB群体成员如何看待学科专属术语，包括他们认为此类术语可能造成哪些伤害，以及哪些术语被他们认定为存在问题。在795名受访者中，我们发现近半数受访者认同EEB领域存在有害术语，且诸多来自边缘化群体的受访者表示，自身曾受到此类术语的伤害。被认定为有害的术语大多涉及种族、族裔与移民议题；性别与性取向议题；地缘政治层级体系；以及历史暴力事件。我们的研究结果表明，EEB领域亟需直面并批判性地重新评估其专属学科术语。通过识别有害术语及其造成的影响，本研究为破除EEB领域根深蒂固的排他性结构迈出了关键的第一步。我们呼吁个人、社群与机构利用本研究的发现，重新审视学科研究、教学与指导、学术稿件撰写以及专业学会中所使用的语言。纠正EEB领域当前存在的不公现象，将有助于推动该学科朝着更加公正与包容的方向发展。