Passalacqua, Nicholas V.

ABSTRACTForensic anthropology must embrace standards and credentialing that align with other medicolegal disciplines, such as forensic pathology and forensic odontology. This involves establishing itself more firmly as an essential specialty in the medicolegal system and limiting practice to qualified professionals. Without educational or professional requirements to practice forensic anthropology, the competencies of those involved in medicolegal cases vary, despite the potentially serious legal impact of errors. Negligent work can impede decedent identification or wrongly convict or free a suspect. Erroneous and unprofessional work also misrepresents the field and may deter agencies from utilizing forensic anthropologists. This commentary aims to convey the need to further professionalize forensic anthropology through the standardization of education, qualifications, and practice. Differences between certification and licensure and their implications are discussed. Recent and upcoming developments in the field highlight progress, including the development of a multi‐level certification system and list of core competencies by the American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA). Additionally, the Anthropology subcommittee of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for forensic science (OSAC) is developing a standard for qualifications in forensic anthropology. These developments emphasize the importance of certification and standardization in education and training for the advancement of forensic anthropology. Standardization efforts such as these will foster a cohesive, respected practice to serve the evolving needs of the medicolegal system.

AbstractThe 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.