Case reporting practices in forensic anthropology are largely not standardized.

Forensic anthropological analyses and reports may include a wide range of information that could provide clues to establish identifications, cause or manner of death determinations, taphonomic alterations, or any other circumstance involving decedents. This is the study of skeletonized remains in medico-legal settings.

However, there is yet no uniform standard, within forensic anthropology in the U.S., which can be applied consistently to case analysis and report writing independent of work environment, education, or case circumstance that does not compromise forensic anthropological expertise in courtroom testimony.

A new study by researchers from Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine found that while some areas of forensic anthropology seem to have a tacit agreement on standardized ways and citations, there are many areas in which forensic anthropologists are divided and not standardized. The researchers said such areas of division and disagreement-for instance, thoughts on objectivity among practitioners and education and training requirements-demonstrate the need for robust and enforceable standardization that applies to all forensic anthropologists.

"Now having evidence of dramatic opposing viewpoints-in some questions, nearly fifty-fifty splits-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," says corresponding author Sean Tallman, Ph.D., associate professor of anatomy & neurobiology.

To examine if this lack of standardization is problematic, the researchers surveyed to explore reporting practices, followed standards, and personal experiences concerning overall practices resulting in case reports. The survey was distributed through an email list related to professional forensic anthropologists and the social media platform X to forensic anthropologists who have experience in creating case reports.

Of those surveyed, the majority, 71.3% felt standardization was necessary; however, there were concerns expressed that the varied venues in which forensic anthropologists are employed (academia, humanitarian settings, government labs and medical examiner/coroner offices) create an issue in standardized requirements. Currently, the "best practice" standards for forensic anthropology do not define which methods to utilize or if peer review should be performed or how.

The findings indicate that the overall lack of standardization in forensic anthropological practice might be due to the different educational pathways to become a forensic anthropologist, given that no specific training requirements are universally accepted and overseen by governing or credentialing bodies.

"Education and training are arguably two of the less standardized aspects of this field. Whereas it is not anticipated or expected that all individuals have the same qualifications - different experiences are available to different individuals - overall, there is a general lack of minimum expectations beyond osteology training. Consequently, forensic anthropologists practicing today are being asked to conduct types of analyses they have not previously experienced, to include post-mortem interval estimation and comparisons of ante-mortem and postmortem X-rays for positive identification," adds Tallman. These findings appear in the journal Forensic Sciences.