CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Feminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesLegal processes and jurisprudenceQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Objectivity is a myth that harms the practice and diversity of forensic science

Open access
Winburn, Allysha Powanda, Clemmons, Chaunesey M.J.·2021·Forensic Science International: Synergy
DOI 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100196PMC PMC8484737
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

• Forensic science data are theory laden; pure scientific objectivity is a myth. • Upholding this myth marginalizes forensic scientists with subjective positionalities • Objectivity rhetoric is exclusive; ethical forensic science needs diverse perspectives. • Espousing objectivity prevents us from supporting the communities we serve. • Mitigated objectivity acknowledges implicit bias, constraining it via quality control.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100196

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The justice and legal systems deal with social issues and are inherently connected to values and ideologies.

    “Also, given that the justice and legal systems deal with social issues, these relate and are inherently connected to values and ideologies (Frank, 1930; Winburn & Clemmons, 2021).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Winburn & Clemmons, 2021

    In “Objectivity does not exist: forensic science data and conclusions are theory-laden” (page unavailable), the paper says forensic scientists testify in court and that their values, theories, and experiences can bias their analyses. “Faith in objectivity is neither neutral nor benign” connects forensic casework to social injustice. These passages support the point for forensic practice within the legal system, but do not make the broader claim about justice and legal systems as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Implicit prosecutorial biases or working within and for a specific side can create bias.

    “For example, implicit prosecutorial biases or working within and for a specific side can create bias (Winburn & Clemmons, 2021).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Winburn & Clemmons, 2021

  • Since the justice and legal systems deal with social issues, personal values, ideologies, and motivations will create biases and impact objectivity.

    “Since the justice and legal systems deal with and relate to social issues, personal values, ideologies, and motivations—maybe even why some people go into this profession in the first place– will all create biases and impact objectivity (Guthrie et al., 2001; Vidmar, 2011; Winburn & Clemmons, 2021).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Winburn & Clemmons, 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. [2]Guba E.C. The Alternative Paradigm Dialog Guba E.C. The Paradigm Dialog 1990 Sage Publications 17 27
  2. [3]Jones A. The Archaeology of “Two Cultures Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice 2002 Cambridge University Press 1 22
  3. [4]Wylie A. On “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings”: Scientific Method in Archaeology and the Ladening of Evidence with Theory. Metaarchaeology Embree L. 1992 Springer Dordrecht 269 288 10.1007/978-94-011-1826-2_12 · DOI
  4. [5]Ayer A.J. Logical Positivism. 1959 The Free Press New York
  5. [8]Bhaskar R. Introduction A Realist Theory of Science 1975 Routledge 12 20 10.4324/9780203090732 2008 · DOI
  6. [9]Bhaskar R. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences third ed. 1979 Routledge 2005
  7. [10]Latour B. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies 1999 Harvard University Press
  8. [11]Latour B. Woolgar S. From Order to Disorder Laboratory Life: the Construction of Scientific Facts 1979 Sage Publications 15 42
  9. [12]Latour B. Woolgar S. The Construction of a Fact: the Case of TRF(H) Laboratory Life: the Construction of Scientific Facts 1979 Sage Publications 105 149
  10. [15]Pronin E. Gilovich T. Ross L. Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others Psychol. Rev. 111 3 2004 781 799 10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781 15250784 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [16]Pronin E. Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment Trends Cognit. Sci. 11 1 2006 37 43 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001 17129749 · DOI
  12. [17]Law J. Whittaker J. On the Art of Representation: Notes on the Politics of Visualisation Fyfe G. Law J. Picturing Power: Visual Depiction and Social Relations 1988 Routledge 160 183
  13. [18]Hodder I. Theory and Practice in Archaeology 1992 Routledge
  14. [22]Dror I.E. Melinek J. Arden J.L. Kukucka J. Hawkins S. Carter J. Atherton D.S. Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions Journal of Forensic Sciences, early view 2021 10.1111/1556-4029.14697 PMC8451910 33608908 · DOI
  15. [23]Hamnett H.J. Dror I.E. The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy 2 2020 339 348 33385132 PMC7770460
  16. [24]Jeanguenat A.M. Budowle B. Dror I.E. Strengthening forensic DNA decision making through a better understanding of the influence of cognitive bias Sci. Justice 57 6 2017 415 420 29173454
  17. [25]Nakhaeizadeh S. Dror I.E. Morgan R.M. Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias Sci. Justice 54 3 2014 208 214 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003 24796950 · DOI
  18. [26]Nakhaeizadeh S. Hanson I. Dozzi N. The power of contextual effects in forensic anthropology: a study of biasability in the visual interpretations of trauma analysis on skeletal remains J. Forensic Sci. 59 5 2014 1177 1183 10.1111/1556-4029.12473 24666192 · DOI
  19. [27]Cooper G.S. Meterko V. Cognitive bias research in forensic science: a systematic review Forensic Sci. Int. 297 2019 35 46 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016 30769302 · DOI
  20. [28]Dror I.E. A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 5 2 2016 121 127 10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.03.001 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [29]Kukucka J. Dror I.E. Human Factors in Forensic Science: Psychological Causes of Bias and Error DeMatteo D. Scherr K.C. The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law 2021 Oxford University Press
  22. [31]Price N. Hedenstierna-Jonson C. Zachrisson T. Kjellström A. Storå J. Krzewińska M. Günther T. Sobrado V. Jakobsson M. Götherström A. Viking warrior women? Reassessing birka chamber grave Bj.581 Antiquity 93 367 2019 181 198 10.15184/aqy.2018.258 · DOI
  23. [32]Dror I.E. Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias Anal. Chem. 92 12 2020 7998 8004 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704 32508089 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [33]Murrie D.C. Boccaccini M.T. Guarnera L.A. Ruffino A. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychol. Sci. 24 10 2013 1889 1897 10.1177/0956797613481812 23969777 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [34]Simon D. Ahn M. Stenstrom D.M. Read S.J. The adversarial mindset Psychol. Publ. Pol. Law 26 3 2020 353 377 10.1037/law0000226 · DOI · Paper page
  26. [35]Daemmrich A. The evidence does not speak for itself: expert witnesses and the organization of DNA-typing companies Soc. Stud. Sci. 28 5–6 1998 741 772 10.1177/030631298028005004 · DOI
  27. [36]Dror I.E. Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation Sci. Justice 51 4 2011 204 208 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004 22137054 · DOI · Paper page
  28. [38]Latour B. We Have Never Been Modern 1993 Harvard University Press
  29. [39]Marks J. Why I Am Not a Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge 2009 University of California Press
  30. [40]Wallace S. Contradictions of Archaeological Theory: Engaging Critical Realism and Archaeological Theory 2011 Routledge 10.1558/jcr.v11i4.499 · DOI
  31. [41]Hawley T.M. The Remains of War: Bodies, Politics, and the Search for American Soldiers Unaccounted for in Southeast Asia 2005 Duke University Press
  32. [42]Black B. The Supreme Court’s view of science: Has Daubert exorcised the certainty demon? Cardozo Law Review 15 1991 2129 2137
  33. [43]Freudenburg W.R. Gramling R. Davidson D. Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): science and the politics of doubt Socio. Inq. 78 1 2008 2 38 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x · DOI
  34. [46]NRC (National Research Council) Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community (2009) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Document No. 228091. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
  35. [47]Winburn A. Subjective with a Capital S? Issues of Objectivity in Forensic Anthropology Clifford Boyd C. Jr. Boyd Donna Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific Basis 2018 John Wiley & Sons 21 38 10.1002/9781119226529.ch2 · DOI
  36. [48]Komar D.A. Buikstra J.E. Forensic Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Practice 2008 Oxford University Press
  37. [50]Goad G. Expanding humanitarian forensic action: an approach to US cold cases Forensic Anthropology 3 1 2020 50 59 10.5744/fa.2020.1006 · DOI
  38. [52]Winburn A. Jennings A. Steadman D. DiGangi E. Ancestral diversity in skeletal collections: perspectives on african American body donation Forensic Anthropology, early view 2020 10.5744/fa.2020.1023 · DOI
  39. [54]Tallman S.D. Bird C.E. Diversity and inclusion in forensic anthropology: where we stand and prospects for the future Forensic Anthropology, early view 2020 10.5744/fa.2020.3001 · DOI
  40. [55]Winburn A.P. Tallman S.D. Scott A.L. Bird C.E. Changing the mentorship paradigm: survey data and interpretations from forensic anthropology practitioners Forensic Anthropology, early view 2021 10.5744/fa.2020.4028 · DOI
  41. [56]Go M.C. Yukyi N. Chu E.Y. Forensic anthropology is WEIRD: knowledge production By whom for whom Forensic Anthropol. 2021 in press
  42. [57]DiGangi E.A. Bethard J.D. Uncloaking a lost cause: decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States American Journal of Physical Anthropology, early view 2021 10.1002/ajpa.24212 PMC8248240 33460459 · DOI
  43. [58]Maier C.A. Craig A. Adams D.M. Language use in ancestry research and estimation J. Forensic Sci. 66 2020 11 24 10.1111/1556-4029.14601 33104274 · DOI
  44. [59]Tersigni-Tarrant M.A. Shirley N.R. Forensic Anthropology Today Tersigni-Tarrant M.A. Shirley N.R. Forensic Anthropology: an Introduction 2013 CRC Press 25 32 10.1201/b12920 · DOI
  45. [60]Menakem R. My Grandmother's Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies 2017 Central Recovery Press
  46. [61]Dror I.E. The ambition to Be scientific: human expert performance and objectivity Sci. Justice 53 2 2013 81 82 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.03.002 23601713 · DOI
  47. [62]Dror I.E. Thompson W.C. Meissner C.A. Kornfield I. Krane D. Saks M. Risinger M. Letter to the editor: context management toolbox: a linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making J. Forensic Sci. 60 4 2015 1111 1112 10.1111/1556-4029.12805 26088016 · DOI · Paper page
  48. [63]Christensen A.M. Crowder C.M. Evidentiary standards for forensic anthropology J. Forensic Sci. 54 6 2009 1211 1216 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01176.x 19804520 · DOI
  49. [65]Steadman D.W. Adams B.J. Konigsberg L.W. Statistical basis for positive identification in forensic anthropology Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 131 1 2006 15 26 10.1002/ajpa.20393 16485302 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winburn, A. P., & Clemmons, C. M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of West Florida (US)
  • Texas State University (US)
Corresponding author
Winburn, Allysha Powanda
ORCID
Winburn, Allysha Powanda
Venue
Forensic Science International: Synergy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021
Volume
3
Pages
100196
ISSN
2589-871X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100196
PMC
PMC8484737
OpenAlex
W3199621585
Cited by
38
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
8.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Forensic Science International Synergy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
scientific objectivity, theory-ladenness, implicit bias, quality control, community participation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review