Our content sensitivity review team recently completed the review of a textbook for a publisher client and we thought that we might share some of the results of that review. In our reviews, we try to maintain a neutral voice, rather than moralizing, because we believe that the publisher and author are already attempting to address any issues that are uncovered– as is evidenced by the fact that they brought us on to help with this work in the first place. With this particular text, our team identified some patterns that they wanted to bring to the attention of the author and editors with suggestions for remediation:
Gender/Sex: When it is not important to the scenarios or text, one could employ more neutral pronouns such as they/them/their. There are many times in chapters where gendered language is being used but gender itself does not seem to be germane to the information. Since this is a textbook about criminalistics, it is understandable that sections are dedicated to the sex categories of male and female. In these sections, reviewers have noted that there is no mention of intersex individuals. Using male/female as adjectives rather than nouns is also considered best practice. Adding terms like person, individual, or thing being discussed helps to keep them as adjectives.
Ethnicity: This comes up in a few chapters. Ethnicity refers to cultural practices so someone can be racially or ancestrally one category but ethnically another. There are times when the reviewers have asked if the text could be using a term like ancestry instead. If the authors do mean ethnicity, then it would be worth more clearly defining what is being considered ancestry, race, and ethnicity. In regards to ethnicity and bones, it might be useful to provide a bit more context given the problematic histories of things like phrenology.
Ability-Based Language: The text and almost all of the activities do imply that the reader is both fully sighted and able-bodied. The reviewers understand that this is most likely the case given the occupations that would be using this textbook. The reviewers have noted places where more inclusive language can be used. While not all of the activities or situations can avoid ability-based language, it would be great if the areas that can be revised are. Other terms like walk-through and eyewitness also seem to elevate these abilities and might not be avoidable if they are terms of art common to this industry.
Person Language: This was only marked in a few chapters but would be a global issue which is why it was only marked a few times. Given how many comments there were, the reviewers and I felt it would be better to just send this as a summative note that the authors can make a general choice about. Terms like convicts, murderers, forgers, suspects, and the body or the victim would usually be terms we would advise changing so as not to reduce people to a single component and one that obscures their humanity. However, given the focus of this text and that students will be working in the law field that uses these terms, it might not make sense to make those kinds of changes.
Given that the reviewers are experts in DEIB language and not this particular field, we also know that they might suggest things that can’t be changed but we do hope that the authors find this feedback helpful.
And we hope that this sample review has been both helpful and informative. We believe that this work works best when its purpose is to make the information being taught clear and accessible to as many learners as possible by removing as many interruptions to learning pathways as can be done.
