Search

The medicolegal system relies on the ability of experts and non‐experts alike to make judgments about expertise and use those judgments to reach consequential decisions. Given the lack of standard criteria, mandatory certification, or licensure for establishing expertise required to practice forensic anthropology and testify as an expert witness, we sought to understand how individuals assess and identify expertise in forensic anthropology by using a social science tool called the Imitation Game. This tool assesses immersion in a specific area of study via discourse, with the premise that some individuals lacking expertise themselves imitate or attempt to pass as experts. For this project we recruited volunteers with varying expertise in forensic anthropology to participate in interviews which asked questions about the practice and structure of the discipline. Those interviews were transcribed, anonymized, and evaluated by other recruited individuals with varying expertise in forensic anthropology. Results found that judges who were experts in forensic anthropology performed better than non‐expert judges in determining who was not an expert in forensic anthropology based on their anonymized responses; however, nearly half of the non‐experts were still able to pass as experts in forensic anthropology. The difficulties in assessing expertise based on discourse interactions demonstrates the value and need for well‐defined credentials and mandatory certification to practice forensic anthropology. This study demonstrates that accurately identifying expertise in forensic anthropology may be challenging for both experts and non‐experts, especially when relying solely on interactional expertise rather than formal assessments of competency which directly elucidate contributory expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: There are currently no baseline data regarding the amount and types of case reports produced by forensic anthropologists. This research fills that gap by providing data on caseloads of practicing forensic anthropologists and identifying variables that may contribute to amount and type of casework. Materials and methods: A survey was distributed to practicing forensic anthropologists (n = 364) to explore number of case reports written and possible influential factors. Questions included demographic information, employment type, institution where master's degree or PhD were obtained, type of reports written, professional organization membership, certification, graduate research focus, among others. Data were analyzed using summary statistics, a random forest model, network analysis, and structural equation modeling. Results: The mean number of sole‐authored skeletal analysis reports per year was 12.33 and field recovery reports was 2 per year. Statistical analyses identified several variables influencing case loads which included: number of fieldwork reports per year, current employment, total number of cases analyzed, age, publication record, and institution of doctoral degree. Network analyses revealed that individuals in academic settings tended to have a bioarchaeological research focus from their graduate work, whereas those in an applied setting had a focus on forensic anthropology. Further, degree institution influenced employment type. Discussion/conclusions: These data address expectations for the number of cases analyzed by a forensic anthropologist per year and set a baseline for expectations and performance. Based on these results, we suggest that forensic anthropology is underutilized in the medicolegal death investigation system and more forensic anthropologists should be employed within Medical Examiner/Coroner's Offices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The qualifications for a discipline are composed of the education and/or training requirements considered necessary to provide individuals with adequate knowledge to perform discipline-related tasks, including certification or licensing (Passalacqua & Pilloud 2018). Currently there are few available guidelines and no standards for the qualifications of a forensic anthropologist. To examine the qualifications of current practicing forensic anthropologists and to generate consensus-based criteria for the development of standards for qualifications for forensic anthropology, the authors generated an electronic survey. Results demonstrate that the qualifications of practicing forensic anthropologists are varied and do not always align with the qualifications currently outlined by the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology or the American Board of Forensic Anthropology. These findings do not mean these individuals are unqualified to practice forensic anthropology, but rather that there is currently little oversight or assistance for those individuals who do not fit the current models of perceived qualification, and no means of determining who does or does not have the adequate knowledge to perform forensic anthropological analyses. As forensic anthropology grows as a discipline, the standardization of qualifications will become increasingly important, both in terms of setting requirements for education and training and for the certification of practitioners. Further, there need to be clearer standards for education and training, which are currently lacking in the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Forensic anthropology in the United States is a specialization within the overall field of anthropology. Forensic anthropologists are specially educated and trained to search, recover, and examine human remains within a medicolegal context. Over time, forensic anthropology has become increasingly specialized and distinct from other specializations within anthropology. As such, we argue that forensic anthropology should be considered its own discipline, with a unique knowledge base, separate from other similar forms of anthropology, such a bioarchaeology. We argue that forensic anthropologists have unique expertise, making them the only type of anthropologist qualified to perform medicolegal examinations of human remains. Finally, we contend that to perform or represent yourself as a forensic anthropologist without the appropriate expertise is ethical misconduct. The value of this paper is that it explains the importance of expertise and knowledge, and how forensic anthropology has diverged from other specializations of anthropology enough to be considered its own discipline. This paper explores the current state of forensic anthropology in the United States as a distinct discipline. Forensic anthropology has become increasingly specialized and the need for strengthened professionalization is becoming paramount. This includes a need for clearly defined qualifications, training, standards of practice, certification processes, and ethical guidelines. Within this discussion, the concept of expertise is explored in relation to professionalization and practice, as both bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology have different areas of specialist knowledge, and therefore unique expertise. As working outside one's area of expertise is an ethical violation, it is important for professional organizations to outline requisite qualifications, develop standards and best practice guidelines, and enforce robust preventive ethical codes in order to serve both their professional members and relevant stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]