with its contributory experts performing their work, but lacking the technical knowledge to perform it yourself.
“Specialist Tacit Knowledge” must be acquired via interactions and enculturation with practicing professionals [ 100 ], and serves as the necessary knowledge base(s) to practice a discipline. Specialist Tacit Knowledge ranges from “interactional expertise” to “contributory expertise” [ 108 ]. Interactional expertise is essentially the ability to interact with other experts using their language/jargon and understanding the concepts being discussed, but lacking the full expertise to practice [ 102 ]. Contributory expertise is traditional technical expertise, where the practitioner is the contributory and interactional expert, meaning they are able to discuss/interact with other individuals at a complex level and able to perform complex disciplinary tasks competently [ 105 ]. With these definitions of types of knowledge, expertise can be defined as “the mastery of the tacit knowledge of a domain of practice, with interactional expertise being mastery of the domain’s language, and contributory expertise being the ability to competently engage in the practices of that domain” [ 104 ] p. 99.
As both bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology share many common lower-level knowledge areas, individuals educated in either discipline have some specialist knowledge of the other, representing what Collins and Evans [ 108 ] refer to as Primary Source Knowledge. For example, both may use the same method to estimate the sex of skeletal remains. However, as specialization increases, there is less and less overlap in knowledge, and the expertise required to interpret method results and generate reports becomes more exclusive. For example, bioarchaeologists must understand the historical context of the samples they are analyzing and when possible, work with descendent communities; while forensic anthropologists must understand jurisdiction, chain of custody, and admissibility of evidence.
These distinctions in knowledge area and specialist expertise are important, as without the appropriate “Specialist Tacit Knowledge”, practitioners/researchers may perform tasks inappropriately and/or incorrectly. As Collins and Evans [ 108 ] p. 22, state: “it can be shown that what is found in the literature, if read by someone with no contact with the core-groups of scientists who actually carry out the research in disputed areas, can give a false impression of the content of the science as well as the level of certainty”. In other contexts, this concept is often referred to as the Dunning–Kruger effect, or essentially the ignorance of one’s ignorance [ 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 ]. Individuals have just enough knowledge to understand the primary literature, but not enough to fully grasp the nuances of this material or how to properly discuss or apply it. The implications of which are that bioarchaeologists and forensic anthropologists, as contributory experts in their respective disciplines, can be ignorant of their lack of cross-disciplinary expertise. Collins and Evans state: “Enculturation” is the only way to master an expertise which is deeply laden with tacit knowledge because it is only through common practice with others that the rules that cannot be written down can come to be understood” [ 108 ] p. 24. Essentially, as knowledge becomes more specialized, individuals interested in acquiring this knowledge must rely on practitioners’ practices (i.e., experiential training programs) rather than literature (i.e., educational programs) [ 104 ]. Returning to bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology, essentially, the only way to develop contributory expertise in one of these disciplines is through enculturation in a bioarchaeological or forensic anthropological educational and/or training program supervised by a contributory expert in that discipline. This is not to say that individuals cannot be experts in both disciplines, rather it means that dual expertise requires individuals to develop contributory expertise in both bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. As Collins and Evans [ 108 ] point out, lacking such enculturation at the level of contributory expertise leads to overconfidence and poor performance (i.e., the Dunning–Kruger effect).
It is important to reiterate here that the focus is on education and training by other contributory experts, working towards building a body of knowledge and practical skills in a way that is consistent with how the discipline (i.e., other contributory experts) operates. This “enculturation” is not a form of limiting access to knowledge, but rather as means of acquiring knowledge in such a way that the learner will develop interactional expertise (being able to have high-level discussions with other contributory experts, using the appropriate processes) and contributory expertise (being able to use methods, technology, etc., in such a way that it contributes to the greater body of scholarly knowledge of a discipline). This is not a new concept and is essentially how academia currently operates. That is, students attend graduate school at programs that have education programs in which they are interested, working with advisors doing work similar to what they want to do as professionals. While academia is not without its major flaws, the argument here is simply that training and education are critical to gaining the requisite skills to perform disciplinary tasks. The arguments presented here are the first step in recognizing the need for developing expertise, the next step would be to develop such training and education programs. As a discipline, we can and should critically evaluate what this training looks like and how we define demonstrable expertise in a way that is inclusionary and equitable.
Professional organizations like the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), the American Association of Physical/Biological Anthropologists (AAPA/AABA), the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), and the American Anthropological Association (AAA) exist largely to provide individuals in that profession opportunities to network, organize, and serve and engage with the public. Additionally, these organizations typically provide professional development and continuing education opportunities, which is why student members are often encouraged to join as a means to facilitate disciplinary enculturation and entrée into the profession at large, which can also serve to provide them with the necessary expertise to practice their discipline. Further, organizational ethical codes should address qualifications so as to define the proper education and/or training to perform discipline-related tasks. Such a definition would prevent an individual from performing applied work outside their area of expertise, which is an ethical violation. Here, we first outline the need for professional ethical guidelines, and then we revisit the role these organizations can play in providing qualifications for members.
A professional is someone who: (1) possesses a body of special knowledge (i.e., contributory expertise), (2) practices within an ethical framework (i.e., adheres to a code of ethics and avoids conflicts of interest), and (3) fulfills a societal need [ 6 , 7 , 113 ]. Professionalism is conduct associated with a particular profession. Both bioarchaeology, e.g., [ 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ] and forensic anthropology, e.g., [ 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 ] have extensive literature regarding ethical conduct and practice. However, ethical codes are typically established, and presumably enforced, by professional organizations. Ethical codes are used to: (1) establish conduct that is meant to be pursued by practitioners of a discipline (altruistic behavior); (2) establish conduct that must be avoided (i.e., misconduct), and (3) provide potential negative outcomes for practitioners engaging in misconduct [ 113 , 125 ]. Professional ethics are typically presented in the form of either aspirational guidelines or preventive standards [ 126 ]. Aspirational ethical codes are meant to promote human wellbeing and present a number of guiding and/or motivational behaviors that an organization would like its members to follow/achieve. Preventive ethical codes are enforced by an adjudicating committee within an organization that performs an investigation when a complaint of misconduct alleges that an individual acted unethically [ 113 ]. The content of ethical codes for professional organizations vary, but should generally be structured to ensure members avoid unprofessional conduct, so as to maintain the credibility of the profession and professional organization. Without clear professional ethics, a discipline does not have guidelines for acceptable or unacceptable behavior, such that there can be no good or bad conduct, and all actions must be treated equally [ 127 ] p. 233.
In terms of the meaningful implementation of professional ethics, there are two essential issues that must be addressed. The first is that ethical codes must be detailed enough so that specific types of conduct considered to be unethical are demonstrably so. Second, ethical codes must be enforceable, with negative outcomes for individuals found guilty of misconduct. The importance of these issues is perhaps most easily demonstrable in terms of U.S. politics, where ethical guidelines are often ignored when ethical misconduct is not actually against the law, and the language of ethical guidelines is vague and not rigorously enforced [ 128 , 129 , 130 ]. As Josephson states: “there is a big difference between what you have the right to do and what is right to do” [ 131 ] p. 4. Unfortunately, the same is also the case in most professional organizations in which bioarchaeologists and forensic anthropologists are members. This is important as the law is meant to represent and enforce values for society as a whole, but is often not specific enough to cover many activities pertinent to a particular profession. Professional ethical codes more directly address discipline-specific values and behaviors.
Because ethical codes are tied to specific organizations, they only apply to the members of those organizations. This means that organizational membership (or lack thereof) plays an important role in establishing and policing the conduct of a profession and its body of practitioners, based on each organization’s ethical code. It also means that each organization should consider the ramifications of its membership requirements in terms of professional qualifications and access to students and non-experts, and how this allows the organization to serve its role within its professional community. Therefore, professional organizations serve a role of providing opportunities for gaining expertise through enculturation by interacting with additional contributory experts, and are positioned to provide sanctions when a member practices outside of their expertise, which could be seen as an ethical violation.
Bioarchaeology has no official or widely accepted published documents in the public or private sector regarding qualifications for bioarchaeological practice, or for the education or training of its practitioners. Currently, anyone claiming to have the appropriate training in bioarchaeology can be employed to perform applied bioarchaeological tasks. This is particularly true in contract archaeology (i.e., cultural resource management [CRM]), where it may be difficult to find qualified osteologists who are also available at the time of the excavation. These companies may then be forced to hire individuals with little osteological training to excavate and perform analyses.
As a recognition of the need for standardized qualifications, there have been some movements to define minimum qualifications to perform osteological analysis and excavation. Within the Code of Colorado Regulations, under Section 13 “Unmarked Human Graves”, point G states, “Pursuant to 24-80-1302(4)(e), the physical anthropological study of human remains shall be conducted by a qualified physical anthropologist with the credentials comparable to those required for principal investigators, as set forth in Section 5 of these regulations” ( https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=541&fileName=8%20CCR%201504-7 , accessed on 16 July 2021). The qualifications outlined for principal investigators include a graduate degree in anthropology, archaeology, or history with experience in Colorado archaeology; one year of professional experience; four months of supervised field and analytic experience; and the ability to complete research.
The Wisconsin Historical Society has taken this a step further to establish specific guidelines to be a “qualified archaeologist for burial sites or a qualified skeletal analyst”. Their mandatory requirements include a graduate degree in anthropology, at least one year of professional experience or specialized training, at least four months of supervised experience, and the ability to complete a project. The full list of requirements and application instructions can be found on their website: https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS14963 , accessed on 16 July 2021. The Society for California Archaeology (SCA) recently sent out an email to members with a draft outline for “recommended qualifications for field osteologists working in California”. Very generally, this guideline would recommend a master’s degree in anthropology and field experience dealing with human remains. There are additional qualifiers such as course work in human osteology, experience with NAGPRA, and a field school with an osteological focus, among others. The guidelines have not been published and are currently out for public comment ( https://form.jotform.com/90855960158972 , accessed on 16 July 2021). Of note, the guidelines would not be enforceable by the SCA, but would serve as recommendations for employers. These guidelines for qualifications address specialist expertise by requiring not only advanced education but also having already worked as a professional and having been supervised to gain enculturation.
Within forensic anthropology, Galloway and Simmons [ 132 ] identified deficiencies in the standardization of education and training in forensic anthropology over two decades ago. As a result, more formal efforts were taken up by the Scientific Working Group for Anthropology (SWGAnth) to establish guidelines for Qualifications [ 133 ], and Education and Training [ 134 ]. However, these documents were never widely adopted, nor are they enforceable. Passalacqua and Pilloud [ 85 ] surveyed practicing forensic anthropologists and found large variations in terms of graduate coursework taken by the survey participants. The survey also demonstrated a lack of consensus among practicing forensic anthropologists in what constituted appropriate education and training in forensic anthropology. However, there was overwhelming agreement that clear standards for education are needed, with a high degree of support (96%) for developing an accreditation for forensic anthropology educational programs. Additionally, Langley and Tersigni-Tarrant [ 135 ] outlined a model to develop qualifications in forensic anthropology based on medical education. In this model, there would be a set of core competencies demonstrated via various “entrustable professional activities”. Once core competencies are clearly identified and agreed upon, appropriate training and certification (to demonstrate expertise) could be implemented.
There are currently no certifications for the profession of bioarchaeology, however, job ads in the United Kingdom for osteologists have added “professional grade membership of the CIFA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists]” as a desired criterion; which is functionally a certification (albeit not necessarily focused on the analysis of human remains).
While no widely supported guidelines or standards currently exist in terms of education and training, or qualifications within forensic anthropology, there are certification processes see, [ 7 ] for an overview. In Europe, the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe (FASE) and the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI) oversee certification processes. In Latin America, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Antroplogía Forense (ALAF) also has a certification process. In the United States, the ABFA has a certification process, and is currently the only accredited certifying body for forensic anthropology.
While these certifications may exist, there is still a lack of clear qualifications (i.e., who can practice and how do you educate/train practitioners) within both subdisciplines. This lack of standardized qualifications is problematic as there are no widely agreed-upon standards for determining who is and who is not an expert and thus capable to perform tasks as a bioarchaeologist or a forensic anthropologist. As both disciplines are specialized, it can be difficult for outside agencies to accurately judge the qualifications and requisite expertise of individuals applying to perform these types of analysis. For example, with very few exceptions there are no standards in bioarchaeology to determine who can perform work for NAGPRA repatriation, osteological analysis, or excavation in CRM, or at academic archaeological sites. Nor are there requirements demonstrating expertise to teach bioarchaeological field-schools, or meaningful certifications or competencies gained through attending a field school. All of these things can be problematic for the adequate interpretation of archaeological sites and human remains with an irreplaceable loss of data and information (when analyses are permitted), particularly in cases of repatriation and reburial. Moreover, while there is a certification process within forensic anthropology, there is no legal requirement that a forensic anthropologist must be certified in order to perform such analyses in a medicolegal context. In fact, any such self-identified specialist can be tasked to perform this work. Contracting unqualified individuals to perform forensic anthropological casework can result in improper conclusions, which can hinder identification efforts (or worse, misidentify a person) and could have enormous consequences during the litigation process, for the analyst, their employer and, critically, for the family of the deceased.
The ramifications of the differences in the disciplines are that if an individual without the appropriate education and training acts beyond their professional expertise, they are misrepresenting their qualifications and could potentially do harm to the research project, field recovery, forensic case/investigation, descendant populations (as occurred with the well-known example of “The Ancient One”, also known as Kennewick Man [ 136 , 137 , 138 ], and/or the entire discipline; and are thus acting unethically. As such, professionals and professional organizations should be critically concerned about qualifications, expertise, and ethical practice. It cannot be expected that law enforcement agencies, attorneys, CRM firms, museums, or a medicolegal authority be trained in examining the nuances of an anthropological degree to determine who is and who is not qualified to be a bioarchaeologist or forensic anthropologist. There must be clear published standards that go beyond education in skeletal analysis as work in bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology has become increasingly specialized and individuated.
We attempted to demonstrate that bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology have evolved and diverged into two separate disciplines, each encompassing its own suite of literature, education, training, and qualifications. Additionally, we attempted to illustrate the connection between expertise, ethics, and professional organizations as important aspects to the advancement of, and professional practice in, both bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. Both disciplines are in need of the development of standardized education and training programs that reinforce best practice models for their applied foci. Once appropriate models for education and training have been defined, it can become possible for practitioners to demonstrate expertise to achieve credentials in a more meaningful and demonstrable way. Professional organizations should be leading these efforts in addition to establishing robust and enforceable ethical codes and tailoring their membership in such a way as to support the further professionalization of their disciplines.
Thus far, bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology have not fully embraced standardization of practice or qualifications—although forensic anthropology is ahead in this regard [ 7 ]. This shortfall is probably due in part to the largely academic focus of both bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology and the lack of familiarity with program accreditation in anthropology generally (although this is common, if not required, in many other academic disciplines, including many of the sciences). However, the accreditation of academic programs specializing in bioarchaeology or forensic anthropology may be a relatively straightforward way to ensure the generation of expertise and qualifications. The generation of consensus-based qualifications (via graduate-level education) for these subdisciplines would not necessitate large changes in curricula within anthropology departments. Rather, these programs may need to make small adjustments to fit the required definitions for accreditation. For example, the definition of qualifications to be a bioarchaeologist could be graduate courses in osteology, bioarchaeology, archaeological theory, and a field school; courses that many bioarchaeologists would readily take and are currently offered by graduate programs. Further, this coursework could be modeled to allow for the development of competency of various related applied skills. For example, the osteology course could provide modules on human vs. non-human identification, or the field school could provide verification of expertise to adequately excavate and document skeletal material within an archaeological context. For forensic anthropology, graduate coursework with a forensic focus, osteology, and a forensic archaeological field school could be required. Competency could be demonstrated via mock or mentored casework.
There are already movements to define qualifications within bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology; however, these should be codified by professional organizations and linked to education and training. Within bioarchaeology, there are regional movements to define qualifications to perform bioarchaeological work, but these efforts are in their earliest stages. As there is currently no professional organization for bioarchaeology, these steps are being taken by other organizations, such as the SCA, the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA), and the state governments in which the work is being performed. These qualifications are still vague and may not be broadly enforced or accepted by the professional community at large. It may be necessary for this work to be undertaken as a working group within the AAPA/AABA, or independently as is being done with forensic anthropology via the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC) and the American Academy of Forensic Science Standards Board (ASB). Again, the definition of these qualifications would not serve as a means to hamper research or scientific integrity or as a means of keeping people out of the disciplines, but would aid in determining who is capable of performing disciplinary tasks in an applied setting. It may also be beneficial for bioarchaeology to develop a national certification process similar to the ABFA, which could serve to illustrate requisite expertise or competencies to employers and stakeholders.
Within forensic anthropology, the OSAC and ASB are developing and have published best practice recommendations and standards for performing various disciplinary tasks. As part of this initiative, there is a consideration for education and training, and qualifications; however, these specific documents are not yet finalized. There is already a mechanism to review and approve education programs within the forensic sciences, the Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission (FEPAC). However, this organization does not currently oversee forensic anthropology programs. Still, the FEPAC model could provide a way forward for accrediting forensic anthropology (and bioarchaeology) educational programs, if necessary. Additionally, the ABFA certification process could be updated and improved to adequately illustrate competencies as outlined by the OSAC and ASB documents.
While this work is being undertaken to improve and standardize both disciplines, there is still very little consequence for not following existing standards or ethical codes. Platitudes on misconduct without operational enforcement mechanisms are not useful. As performing work beyond one’s qualifications is unethical, we argue that professional organizations need to more clearly define ethical codes with enforceable consequences.
Bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology do not operate in a vacuum. Both disciplines examine the remains of deceased humans, and every action, use for, and result from that examination affects the beneficiaries and stakeholders associated with those human remains [ 139 ]. While not commonly considered, there has been a recent push to acknowledge that the dead retain their humanity and thus should be granted rights [ 113 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 ]. Additionally, human subjects have next-of-kin, be they direct living relatives, or more distantly related descendant-communities. As those performing these analyses are often responsible for the curation/custody of these remains, we must acknowledge that we have an ethical and moral responsibility to act in the best interests of these individuals and their next-of-kin (usually defined in open dialogue with relatives and kin). The analyses we perform are used to reach conclusions that are presented in reports, publications, and other media, available to not only the research subject’s next-of-kin, but also the public at large. Bioarchaeological reports may be used to understand past human lifeways and as one part of the process for repatriation and return to descendent communities. Forensic anthropology reports may be used not only to bring closure to a family, but in court to adjudicate innocence or guilt. The conclusions of our work have meaning and reflect upon the identity and lives of the deceased as well as the communities from which they came.
When we consider the importance of this type of work, we should want to ensure that the individual performing an analysis is an expert, and we owe that commitment to our communities and the individuals we study. Incorrect analyses and erroneous conclusions cause harm. As such, we should want to ensure that our students are being educated in the methods and skills necessary to perform their work and best serve not just their discipline, but their research subjects. Further, we should want to ensure that the quality of work we perform as professionals continues to be held to a high standard by generating and following best practices and/or standards for analytical decisions in applied practice. We should do these things, not just because they are the right thing to do, but as a service to those upon which we base not only our work, but also our entire careers.
A credential used to demonstrate that an organization (e.g., a university, medical examiner’s office, forensic anthropology laboratory) meets a set of published standards [ ]. Most forensic anthropology laboratories are accredited under ISO/IEC 17020 or 17025. | |
Procedures, methods, and/or techniques that have been accepted as preferable over others as they produce superior results and comply with legal and/or ethical requirements. | |
agents (e.g., victims, families, communities, NGOs) that can be considered interested parties (i.e., stakeholders) in the investigation, benefiting from the forensic services provided and the resolution of the investigation to varying degrees [ ]. | |
A credential provided by a professional organization demonstrating that an individual has met the knowledge and/or skills required to pass their certification process [ ]. For example, the ABFA provides a certification and is accredited by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board. | |
The application of knowledge, skills, and abilities to correctly complete specific disciplinary [ ]. | |
Traditional technical expertise, where the practitioner is the contributory and interactional expert [ ]. | |
Verifiable document used to demonstrate completion of education and/or training (e.g., transcripts, licenses). Frequently used to “acknowledge, restrict, or protect the use of a title, and/or activities” [ , ] p. 220. | |
Formal academic coursework from an accredited school, college, or university, resulting in a degree [ , ]. | |
An individual possessing authoritative knowledge or skill in a particular area, which can be demonstrated via credentials and/or certification [ , ] pp. 29–30. | |
The mastery of not only the salient, but also the tacit, areas of knowledge of a field of inquiry, which includes the ability to use the language of the field of inquiry as well as to engage fully in its practices [ ]. | |
(i.e.: best practice documents) Published documents providing for how to perform a particular action or process. Guidelines are typically vetted and published by accredited organizations. Their content must be based on practitioner and stakeholder consensus. Guidelines are typically more detailed/descriptive than standards, but are also open to interpretation [ ]. | |
The ability to interact with other experts using their language/jargon and understand the concepts they are discussing [ ]. | |
Education and training needed to demonstrate adequate knowledge to perform discipline-related tasks in an applied setting [ ]. | |
Something that is not mandatory, but is professionally considered best practice. | |
A practice that is professionally considered mandatory. | |
Serves as the requisite knowledge base(s) to practice a discipline [ ]. | |
(i.e.: formal standards) Published documents providing rules for how to perform a particular action or process. Standards are typically vetted and published by accredited organizations. Their content must be based on practitioner and stakeholder consensus [ ]. Any deviation from published standards can be considered poor practice and a breach of ethics. | |
Formal structured process of teaching and assessment at a laboratory or other non-educational institution, often resulting in a certificate [ , , ]. | |
Knowledge that is easily accessible and therefore ubiquitous [ ]. |
Conceptualization, N.V.P. and M.A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, N.V.P., M.A.P., D.C.; writing—review and editing, N.V.P., M.A.P., D.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research received no external funding.
Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy .
ROSEN, SARAH,MAYA (2020) We Were Seeds: The Socio-Political Economies of Forensic Anthropology After Political Violence. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.
This thesis seeks to navigate the intersection of forensic anthropology and social anthropology applied in contexts after political violence. The first case study is the identification efforts in Guatemala run by the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala (FAFG) and the Ministerio Publico. The second case study is the World Trade Center identification efforts run by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of New York. Examinations of these examples reveal the complex nature of forensic anthropology after political violence and how similar dynamics can emerge even in fundamentally distinct scenarios. This thesis argues that forensic anthropological work occurs in a matrix of influences, which serve and empower some demographics over others, as well as producing or maintaining narratives surrounding the violence. It is also argued that these disparities and narratives can be understood in terms of their political, socioeconomic, and academic functions within the identification effort. These disparities and narratives manifest from attributions of victimhood, prioritisation of some victims over others, institutionalised remembering and forgetting through interment, and in the multilateral and national responses to these delineations of victim. This thesis concludes that the systematic nature of these influences can be understood within an intersecting model. This allows for the nuanced examination of concomitant political, social, and academic influences at each level of the forensic anthropological endeavour—as all participants of the forensic anthropological endeavour are beholden to this matrix. The disparities in access and empowerment extend beyond merely the unidentified dead and impact the living loved-ones of the unidentified and missing, the forensic anthropologists themselves, and those who enable forensic anthropological projects through funding and administration. A holistic understanding of these contexts allows forensic anthropology to function in a transformative justice model, contributing to efforts that address the underlying causes of the violence as well as the symptoms of it. In light of this, a heuristic model for practitioners and administrators for forensic anthropological efforts may be found in the intersectional, functional model to account for systematic discrepancies in access and empowerment—although this model should be applied with nuanced understandings of relativism, descriptivism, and prescriptivism.
Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
---|---|
Award: | Doctor of Philosophy |
Keywords: | Forensic anthropology, political violence, Guatemala, World Trade Center, 9/11, FAFG, OCME, unidentified remains, skeletal analysis, access, empowerment, war crimes, genocide, terrorism, transformative justice, transitional justice, humanitarianism, intersectionality, functionalism, relativism, reflexivity, ethics in anthropology |
Faculty and Department: | |
Thesis Date: | 2020 |
Copyright: | Copyright of this thesis is held by the author |
Deposited On: | 01 Oct 2020 11:02 |
Last Modified: Summer 2013 | Disclaimer | Trading name | Powered by EPrints 3
Forensics Digest
All about Forensics
This article serves as a compass, guiding readers through a diverse array of recent dissertation topics that encapsulate the multifaceted nature of forensic research. From digital forensics to forensic psychology, the chosen dissertation topics reflect the evolving challenges and advancements in solving complex legal puzzles.
Forensic DNA Analysis:
Digital Forensics:
Forensic Anthropology:
Forensic Toxicology:
Forensic Psychology:
Forensic Pathology:
Forensic Odontology:
Forensic Entomology:
Reader interactions.
January 7, 2024 at 2:22 am
thank you for this post. I needed to submit a topic for my dissertation on Monday and you guys saved me big time
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Topic 5: Determining the effectiveness of blood spatter studies in identifying the nature and timing of crime at crime scenes. Topic. 1: Forensic science in the 20th century and today. Topic. 2: Case Study of the criminal cases and convictions resolved through forensic science. Topic. 3: Role of botany and entomology in the forensic science.
Theses/Dissertations from 2023 PDF. Entanglements of Teenage Food Security Within High School Pantries in Pinellas County, Florida, ... Critiquing Ancestral Estimation Through Computer Generated Statistical Analysis Within Forensic Anthropology in a Real-World Setting, Christopher J. Turner. PDF.
Abstract. Decomposition research is still in its infancy, but significant advances have occurred within forensic anthropology and other disciplines in the past several decades. Decomposition research in forensic anthropology has primarily focused on estimating the postmortem interval (PMI), detecting clandestine remains, and interpreting the ...
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. ... Bethard found that based solely on the focus of dissertation subjects, representing the focus of ...
Research. Our program is one of the only graduate forensic anthropology programs in the United States that is part of a department of anatomy at a major medical center. This setting provides students and faculty access to extensive resources and facilities, including our outdoor research facility and human gross anatomy laboratory.
Molecular analysis of skeletal evidence. Successful recovery and analysis of DNA has dramatically affected many areas of forensic science. In the field of forensic anthropology, molecular analysis can yield highly accurate information regarding the sex of the individual represented and provide positive identification [Citation 1].Molecular approaches also can contribute to ancestry evaluation ...
MS in Forensic Anthropology. ... Students are encouraged to publish thesis work and to present it at a professional society meeting. Program Requirements Courses. The Forensic Anthropology Program offers a variety of courses in forensic anthropological techniques and procedures, human anatomy, osteology, pathology, human remains recovery ...
This dissertation examines the accuracy of the biological profile from forensic anthropology reports among 204 resolved and 284 unresolved skeletal cases at the medical examiners' offices in New York City, NY; Harris County, TX; and Pima County, AZ. Current forensic anthropological methods used to estimate the biological profile are
A detailed checklist for this option can be downloaded from the Anthropology Department website. Core requirements for all students in the forensic anthropology option, regardless of whether they are pursuing the thesis, professional paper, or portfolio track: The following five (5) anthropology graduate seminars: ANTY 500, 510, 512, 513, and 515.
Research Thesis Project. Students in the MS in Forensic Anthropology program are required to complete a graduate level research project that culminates into either a full-length thesis or completed manuscript for submission to a recognized journal for publication. The process of conducting the research projects and writing a thesis requires approximately 8-12 months to complete.
Forensic anthropology*. Forensic science is a dynamic discipline that is crucial to the investigation of crime, the collection of evidence and intelligence, and in securing justice. This multidisciplinary MSc programme offers students a unique opportunity to gain forensic science skills and methods within a holistic crime science framework.
This thesis seeks to navigate the intersection of forensic anthropology and social anthropology applied in contexts after political violence. The first case study is the identification efforts in Guatemala run by the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala (FAFG) and the Ministerio Publico. The second case study is the World Trade Center identification efforts run by the Office of the ...
New perspectives in forensic anthropology. PubMed. ... Doctoral dissertation titles were queried to discern broad patterns of research foci. A total of 39 doctoral granting institutions have trained diplomates and 77.3% of board-certified forensic anthropologists wrote dissertations involving skeletal biology, ...
How To Choose Your Forensic Science Dissertation or Thesis Topic If one of your goals or objectives in life is to be admitted to a graduate school or a PhD program, the most important and rather inevitable element is a thesis or dissertation (usually interchangeable), without which, a master's or a doctoral degree would simply remain a far ...
From digital forensics to forensic psychology, the chosen dissertation topics reflect the evolving challenges and advancements in solving complex legal puzzles. Forensic DNA Analysis: "Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in Forensic DNA Profiling: Opportunities and Challenges". "The Impact of DNA Transfer and Secondary DNA Transfer in ...
This thesis explores the extent to which forensic archaeology and forensic anthropology are utilised within Great Britain and to what extent they aid, or do not aid, medico-legal investigation of death. Chapter One introduces the topic and considers the need for an exploration of these issues.
theses/dissertations from 2019 pdf. 3d printing of the proximal right femur: it's implications in the field of forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology, myriah adonia jo allen. pdf. the quest of vision: visual culture, sacred space, ritual, and the documentation of lived experience through rock imagery, aaron robert atencio. pdf
The Forensic Archaeology, Taphonomy, and Trauma Laboratory Group researches forensic anthropological field methods, postmortem changes to remains, and skeletal trauma. These topic areas all afford expanding frontiers in forensics that are highly suited for thesis projects, and incoming students are highly encouraged to pursue these fields.
Module code. CA41003. You will have the opportunity to conduct an independent research project in an area of forensic anthropology and be supervised by a one of CAHID's academic staff. This brings together all that you will have learnt over the four year and can be either literature or laboratory based, making use of the equipment available ...
Abstract. Given the recent growth in the field, some students in forensic anthropology may find it difficult to devise an affordable, suitable, and ideally publishable thesis topic. Taphonomic projects often can fill this role, as many do not require a large budget, are experimental in nature, thus giving students greater control over the data ...
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of ... excavate mass graves; forensic anthropology, which uses metric and non-metric methods to analyse the physical anthropology of any skeletal remains; and forensic pathology, the study of disease and injury, which can aid in the ...
FNSC5649 Forensic Science Dissertation (Anthropology) Part 1: by arrangement with supervisor—laboratory/practical work: 10 hours total per week: S1, S2: FNSC5628: Forensic Anthropology Professional Project Part 2 (12 points) Prerequisites Enrolment in. 72580 Master of Forensic Anthropology .
Forensic anthropology: The identification of size, age, and gender of victims; Fingerprint testing powders: Better formulation for clearer results ... Forensic Medicine Thesis Topics. Forensic medicine deals mostly with examining and assessing individuals who have been wounded or may have passed away as a result of external or unnatural causes ...
PSY 780: Fieldwork in Counseling OR PSY 782: Fieldwork in Forensic Psychology; 2 electives of choice (6 credits) Thesis Information: If interested in the thesis track, you must find a full-time faculty member to work with you as a thesis advisor. For assistance in finding an advisor, email the Master's Student Research Group: [email protected].
Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology (bachelor) Cultural Data & AI (master) ... Forensic Science (master) Frans, Educatie en communicatie (master) ... Presentation Master's thesis - Nikoleta Yaninska - Work and Organisational Psychology. Laatst gewijzigd op 25-06-2024 14:24. share.