Case reporting practices in forensic anthropology are largely not standardized

(Boston)—Forensic anthropological (the study of skeletonized remains in medico-legal settings) analyses and reports include diverse information that may help in establishing identifications, cause or manner of death determinations, taphonomic (post-death decay, destruction, or burial)  alterations, or other circumstances involving decedents. However, within forensic anthropology in the U.S., there remains no unifying standardization for analyzing cases or writing reports that can be used independent of work environment, education or case circumstance, which may compromise forensic anthropological expertise in courtroom testimony.  

A new study from researchers at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine has found that while some areas of forensic anthropology appear to have tacit agreement on standardized methods and citations, there are many areas where forensic anthropologists are divided and lack standardization. The researchers believe these areas of division and disagreement-for example, thoughts on the objectivity of practitioners and education and training requirements, demonstrate the need for a robust and enforceable standardization that applies to all forensic anthropologists.

“Now having evidence of dramatic opposing viewpoints (nearly fifty-fifty splits in some questions) further pushes for an open discussion on this topic and the beginning of change. Further, because many forensic anthropologists are sole practitioners (32.4%) and consult on forensic anthropology cases without access to standard operating procedures or peer review, universal standards are important,” explains corresponding author Sean Tallman, PhD, associate professor of anatomy & neurobiology.

In order to explore whether a lack of standardization is problematic, the researchers conducted a survey to explore reporting practices, followed standards and personal experiences regarding overall practices that lead to case reports. The survey was distributed to individuals in an email list associated with professional forensic anthropologists and the social media platform X, targeting forensic anthropologists who have experience creating case reports.
 

Most of the survey respondents (71.3%) agreed that standardization is important; however, respondents expressed concerns that the diverse areas of employment for forensic anthropologists (academia, humanitarian settings, government labs and medical examiner/coroner offices) may prevent universal standards. Presently, the “best practice” standards for forensic anthropology lack specificity regarding which methods to use or whether peer review should be conducted and how.

According to the researchers, the findings also suggest suggests that the overall lack of standardization in forensic anthropological practice may originate from the varied educational pathways to become a forensic anthropologist, as there are no specific training requirements that are universally accepted and overseen by governing or credentialing bodies. “Education and training are arguably two of the least standardized aspects of this field. While it is not expected that every person has the same qualifications, as different experiences are available to different individuals, there is an overall lack of minimum expectations beyond osteology training. This results in forensic anthropologists working today being faced with types of analyses they have not previously experienced, such as postmortem interval estimation and comparison of antemortem and postmortem x-rays for positive identification” adds Tallman.

These findings appear online in the journal Forensic Sciences.