What makes a “good” forensic anthropologist?

Abstract

Forensic anthropology has recently and publicly grappled with fundamental disciplinary issues—including estimating population affinity, the pursuit of objectivity, and the role of bias in medicolegal contexts—all of which has left the subdiscipline in a state of seeming fracture, with many practitioners worried about its future. Given these concerns, we wondered to what degree polarization exists, if at all, and along what lines. Using the method of cultural consensus analysis, we asked forensic anthropologists: What makes a “good” forensic anthropologist? Our findings suggest that contrary to widespread concern, broad agreement (consensus) exists over the training, experiences, perspectives, and practices forensic anthropologists (n = 103) identified as important for being “good” at what they do. A few points of disagreement emerged—particularly over the issue of neutrality—which dominated the narrative feedback we received. The fault lines of this debate primarily fell along generational lines, with those having earned their degrees earlier believing more strongly in neutrality. This pattern largely maps onto broader (and somewhat routine) disciplinary debates and trends away from positivism, with younger anthropologists more focused on the larger goal of “decolonizing US anthropology” and attending to the antiracist work that figures prominently in anthropology today.

Speaking Truth to Power: Toward a Forensic Anthropology of Advocacy and Activism

“…However, due to the applied hyperfocus of the field, along with a low priority for self-reflection, forensic anthropology has largely ignored social issues. Since the Supreme Court decision on Daubert in 1993, forensic anthropologists have increasingly focused on research related to methodological validation and quantitative rigor [15,16]. However, this necessary shift in research tra-jectory has left other aspects of our practice under-examined.…”