Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • br An approach for the key

    2021-09-15


    An approach for the key challenges facing forensic science One of the key challenges for forensic science is to avoid being side-tracked by one of the louder narratives in the media that the big problem forensic science faces is ‘junk science’ and ‘rogue scientists’. These are clearly important issues but if we focus only on them we risk having too simplified a view of the challenges faced by forensic science. Such a narrow (‘hedgehog’) focus can lead to confident strong and clear opinions of how to address those challenges but an increased risk that in practice the challenges are not dealt with at their root cause [24] and other challenges are not identified and addressed that are having an equally significantly (or greater) impact. If we are able to incorporate the ‘fox’ approaches we increase the chances of addressing the multiple important issues that impact robust forensic reconstruction approaches. In this W146 context, the ‘fox’ approach is one where uncertainty is more readily incorporated into problem solving tactics that synthesise multiple factors that are in play across the forensic science environment (such as an understanding of decision making, and the connections between different parts of the forensic science process within the whole system). When these attributes are integrated, there is evidence from other domains that the solutions reached are likely to be more ‘successful’ [24]. Consider, of the many challenges within forensic science, the issues we currently face in terms of communicating the meaning of forensic science evidence [25]. It has been established that forensic science is a complex matrix of actors (individuals and institutions) and contributing knowledge bases (across the sciences, social sciences and humanities) [19]. Therefore, developing a common language by which to communicate across that space that is transparent and unambiguous is highly desirable. Taking the ‘hedgehog’ approach and articulating clear unifying themes is absolutely critical to achieving this. However, the incorporation of uncertainty, the synthesis of different approaches and the interactions of different forms of knowledge with a consideration of the varied drivers of the different actors invested in forensic science, in line with the strengths of the ‘fox’, is also critical. A synergetic approach that draws on the ‘hedgehog’ and the ‘fox’ will offer a vocabulary that can effectively communicate the meaning of forensic science evidence within the context of the whole matrix to assist investigators and the justice system [26]. It will enable the forensic science community to communicate value in a way that is able to effectively contribute to policy, and top down infrastructural changes, as well as develop the grass roots changes that create environments that promote an innovative culture. Another challenge is the research landscape in forensic science. Forensic science needs both technological developments to drive forward innovation and capability in crime detection in a rapidly changing world [6], and foundational research that can underpin the practice of forensic science and within that the interpretation of forensic science evidence [5]. We must resist having a sole focus on just one or the other and thereby create a dichotomy between these two approaches. Innovation requires both ‘hedgehog’ approaches that pursue clear solutions to specific challenges in collaboration with ‘fox’ approaches that provide an appreciation of the context within which research questions are articulated and research methods are developed. With these two approaches in synergy it is more likely that outcomes can be identified that are implementable in a complex system and that can address root causes of the challenge to be solved. When it comes to ensuring quality standards, there is again a clear benefit of bringing together the ‘hedgehog’ and the ‘fox’. Addressing the challenges of ensuring quality within forensic science needs both specific targeted approaches that can offer benchmarks for producing standard operating procedures and accreditation (more in line with the ‘hedgehog’ approach), but also the means to situate those benchmarks and SOPs within the complexity of forensic science reconstruction (drawing on the ‘fox’ approach). This is clearly a significant challenge, but approaches that bring explicit and tacit forms of knowledge together in a way that engages with the interconnected and complex system of forensic science, offer great potential for ensuring that quality standards are implemented effectively, and contribute to the broader forensic reconstruction goal [15].