Given the contribution made by endoscopic applications in the bioarchaeological setting and the increasing reference to endoscopy in the related literature, it seems imperative that standards for procedural and study results be established. One of the hallmarks of a well-written research report is that from the information provided, other researchers have enough information to reproduce the study in similar or alternate research settings. Many studies simply state that they employed endoscopy in the study. That information alone leaves much to the imagination and is not capable of being reproduced. Information regarding the research setting, the endoscopic entry route, the instrumentation characteristics, and any modifications that had to be made during the procedure are examples of data that would help future scientists reproduce the study. Additionally, these data may allow other researchers to think more creatively about endoscopy applications and move endoscopic research in anthropology and archaeology forward. With standard reporting, scientists can better reproduce the applications in alternate settings without introducing a variable, which may alter the outcome of a new study.
In an attempt to direct the application of endoscopy in anthropological and archaeological research and to establish a uniform approach to these applications, we have called upon our experiences and what we have seen in the literature to recommend guidelines regarding what and how to report both procedural variables and the data collected during
a given study. In doing so, we intend to call attention to the broader application potential of the varied endoscopic procedures and applications described in Chapter 4 of this book. What follows is a discussion regarding standards for conducting and reporting endoscopic procedures and data collection in anthropological and archaeological research. Much of this chapter is based on a presentation given at the VI World Congress on Mummy Studies held in Teguise, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain, in February of 2007 (Beckett et al. 2008).
Was this article helpful?