Skip to main content

Forced Science: A Critical Appraisal of the Scientific Rigor of ‘Force Science’ Policing Research

January 2025 Police Quarterly

Ian T. Adams , Seth W. Stoughton , Brandon del Pozo , Irick A. Geary , Marc Olson , Geoffrey P. Alpert

View Publication OpenAlex DOI

Abstract

Courts regularly rely on scientific expert testimony in police use-of-force cases, and the Force Science Institute (FSI)—a private, for-profit entity—has emerged as an important source of purportedly scientific principles shaping police training, policies, and legal outcomes. Its “peer-reviewed” corpus is presented as scientifically authoritative and feeds into “Force Science Analyst” certification and expert consulting. Employing bibliometric analysis and three validated measures of scientific reliability, we assess a recent volume ( Force Science ) representing FSI’s claimed knowledge for scientific reliability. Contrary to FSI’s assertions, our findings show its published materials fail to meet the scientific rigor demanded by the Daubert standard, which governs the admissibility of scientific evidence in U.S. courts. These results highlight the need for caution and critical scrutiny of such evidence, and suggest that reliance on Force Science in legal proceedings, training programs, and policing policies risks introducing unverified concepts into high-stakes decision-making contexts.

Summary

Researchers examined the scientific quality of work produced by the Force Science Institute, a private company that provides expert testimony and training materials used in police use-of-force cases, and found that their research fails to meet basic scientific standards required for court evidence. Despite being presented as authoritative science, Force Science materials lack the reliability and rigor that courts, police departments, and training programs should demand when making critical decisions about police use of force. This matters because unreliable “science” is currently being used to influence legal cases, officer training, and department policies that determine when and how police use force against civilians.

(AI-generated summary, v1, January 2026)

Citation Information

Citations: 2 (as of July 2026)

View Publication

Cite this work

APA

Ian T. Adams, Seth W. Stoughton, Brandon del Pozo, Irick A. Geary, Marc Olson, Geoffrey P. Alpert (2025). Forced Science: A Critical Appraisal of the Scientific Rigor of ‘Force Science’ Policing Research. Police Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111251357498

BibTeX 
@article{adams2025,
  title   = {Forced Science: A Critical Appraisal of the Scientific Rigor of ‘Force Science’ Policing Research},
  author  = {Ian T. Adams and Seth W. Stoughton and Brandon del Pozo and Irick A. Geary and Marc Olson and Geoffrey P. Alpert},
  journal = {Police Quarterly},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1177/10986111251357498},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111251357498}
}

Related publications

Back to Publications