An official website of the United States government
Abstract The 1993 US Supreme Court decisionDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence,Daubertis frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in theJournal of Forensic Sciencesto assess why authors continue to citeDaubertand express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within theDaubertframework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles presentDaubertas a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However,Daubertwas intended to be a flexible tool for judges—not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of theDaubertdecision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to “satisfy” admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science—which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.
more »
« less
Daubert and the Effect on Biological Profile Research
As a core component of casework, methods for estimating the biological profile must meet current legal standards to be admissible as part of a forensic anthropologist’s expert witness testimony. Since the 1993 US Supreme Court Daubert decision, forensic anthropologists have voiced concern that methods relying on subjective or qualitative data might now be at risk of judicial exclusion. This research used a bibliometric approach to assess whether current forensic anthropology research has shifted toward the use of more objective and/or quantitative data. Forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 1972 and 2020 were reviewed (n = 1,142), with data collected on each article’s topic, use of different data types, and inclusion of observer error studies. A subset of articles focusing on methods for estimating the four main parameters of the biological profile (age, sex, ancestry/population affinity, stature) was analyzed using chi-square tests for trend in proportions. Age and sex estimation articles showed a significant shift toward more quantitative data (p < 0.001), although no biological profile subtopic showed a significant shift toward more objective data. While this may seem to be a surprising result, a deeper review of current legal standards and standards of practice suggests that Daubert does not require significant changes to how forensic anthropologists approach research design and method development. So long as the principles of good science are followed, the continued reliance on qualitative data should not be a concern from the standpoint of evidentiary admissibility.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2214747
- PAR ID:
- 10506185
- Publisher / Repository:
- University of Florida Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Forensic Anthropology
- ISSN:
- 2573-5020
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- forensic anthropology biological profile admissibility standards research methodology
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Understanding practitioner preferences in method selection and reporting for skeletal sex estimation is a necessary step toward the standardization of biological profile estimation within forensic anthropological practice in the United States. To better understand the current state of skeletal sex estimation, an electronic survey was sent via omnichannel distribution methods, targeted to individuals practicing skeletal sex estimation in forensic anthropology. One hundred eighteen individuals responded, answering questions about their educational and training background, case experience, practices, and preferences for skeletal sex estimation, and preferences for future method development. Most respondents use both qualitative and quantitative approaches to estimate skeletal sex (99.0%) and employ multiple methods for casework. The pelvis was preferred for morphological approaches, and the Fordisc program [2005, FORDISC 3: Personal computer forensic discriminate functions] was preferred for metric approaches to skeletal sex estimation. Respondents placed emphasis on the validity and reliability of specific methods, their experience and comfort level with applying specific methods, and utilizing methods that did not require expensive equipment. There was considerable variation in how the final sex estimate was determined and reported, with most either giving preference to the pelvis (36.1%) or reporting all methods but basing the final estimation on experience (39.2%). These results were largely similar to the results from a similar survey conducted in 2012, including a preference for using the pelvis for morphological sex estimation; however, the introduction and adoption of new sex estimation methods since 2012 have changed the landscape of practitioner preferences.more » « less
-
Abstract We use a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses to examine 1354 survey responses from members of the American Anthropological Association about their practice and teaching of cultural anthropology research methods. Latent profile analysis and an examination of responses to open‐ended survey questions reveal distinctive methodological clustering among anthropologists. However, two historical approaches to ethnography remain prominent:deep hanging outand amixed methods toolkit, with the former remaining central to the practice and teaching of all forms of contemporary cultural anthropology. Further, many anthropologists are committed to advancing research methods that account for power imbalances in fieldwork, such as through community‐based and participatory approaches. And a substantial number also teach a wider array of methods and techniques that open new career pathways for anthropologists. Overall, our study reveals a core set of ethnographic practices—loosely, participant‐observation, informal interviews, and the experiential immersion of the ethnographer—while also highlighting the great breadth of cultural anthropological research practice and pedagogy. The findings presented here can help inform how current and future anthropological practitioners and educators position themselves to meet the ever‐changing demands of community members, funders, clients, collaborators, and students.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT Biological anthropologists have long engaged in qualitative data analysis (QDA), though such work is not always foregrounded. In this article, we discuss the role of rigorous and systematic QDA in biological anthropology and consider how it can be understood and advanced. We first establish what kinds of qualitative data and analysis are used in biological anthropology. We then review the ways QDA has been used in six subfields of biological anthropology: primatology, human biology, paleoanthropology, dental and skeletal biology, bioarchaeology, and anthropological genetics. We follow that with an overview of how to use QDA methods: three simple QDA methods (i.e., word‐based analysis, theme analysis, and coding) and three QDA approaches for model‐building and model‐testing (i.e., content analysis, semantic network analysis, and grounded theory). With this foundation in place, we discuss how QDA can support transformative research in biological anthropology—emphasizing the valuable role of QDA in inductive and community‐based research. We discuss how QDA supports transformative research using mixed‐methods research designs, participatory action research, and abolition and Black feminist research. Finally, we consider how to close a QDA project, reflecting on the logistics, ethics, and limitations of qualitative data sharing, including how researchers can use the CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) to support Indigenous data sovereignty.more » « less
-
Abstract Sex estimation is a critical component of the biological profile, and forensic anthropologists may use a variety of sex estimation methods depending upon the degree of completeness and state of preservation of the skeletal remains being analyzed. The innominate is widely accepted to be the most sexually dimorphic skeletal element. TheDiagnose Sexuelle Probabiliste(DSP) method, which uses 10 measurements of the innominate, was introduced in 2005 and updated as DSP2 in 2017. While DSP2 has been reported to have high classification accuracy rates in studies of South American and European populations, the method has not been widely tested in US samples, and few US practitioners incorporate this method into their casework. The goal of this study was to test the reliability and accuracy of DSP2 using a large, modern sample from the US (n = 174). Two observers, blinded from demographic information associated with each specimen, collected the DSP2 metrics. Intra‐ and interobserver error analyses showed acceptable levels of agreement for all measurements, except for IIMT. Classification accuracies exceeded 95%, with minimal sex bias, for both observers and using various measurement combinations; however, an inclusivity sex bias occurred with more males reaching the 0.95 posterior probability threshold required by DSP2 to provide a sex classification estimate. Based on its high accuracy, forensic anthropologists in the US may consider incorporating DSP2 into their casework, although we recommend excluding IIMT and using SPU with caution. Additional methods will continue to be needed when the posterior probability threshold is not reached.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2023.0012
