Unlike other expert witnesses, cultural anthropologists must not only provide expert evidence on the case but also convince judges of its validity for meeting the Daubert standard. In this article, I juxtapose two expert testimony reports I have written in criminal and asylum cases. For the first, I conducted cultural consensus analysis, a formal quantitative technique, to gather data on beliefs about co-sleeping behavior among Mexican migrants. For the second, I relied on discursive practice to signal the facts as meeting the standard of evidence. I argue that despite anthropology not being an “exact science,” our locus at the intersection of the sciences, social sciences, and humanities provides us with a range of tools to assert the reliability and validity of our testimony.

中文翻译：

---

从数量事实到话语实践：在专家证词中断言人类学知识可靠性的技术

与其他专家证人不同，文化人类学家不仅要为案件提供专家证据，还要让法官相信其符合 Daubert 标准的有效性。在本文中，我将我在刑事和庇护案件中撰写的两份专家证词报告并列。首先，我进行了文化共识分析，这是一种正式的定量技术，以收集有关墨西哥移民同睡行为的信念数据。其次，我依靠话语实践来表明事实符合证据标准。我认为，尽管人类学不是一门“精确的科学”，但我们在科学、社会科学和人文学科的交汇处为我们提供了一系列工具来断言我们的证词的可靠性和有效性。