A cultural change to enable improved decision-making in forensic science: A six phased approach

Abstract

There has been an increased engagement by researchers in understanding the decision-making processes that occur within forensic science. There is a rapidly growing evidence base underpinning our understanding of decision-making and human factors and this body of work is the foundation for achieving truly improved decision-making in forensic science. Such an endeavour is necessary to minimise the misinterpretation of scientific evidence and maximise the effectiveness of crime reconstruction approaches and their application within the criminal justice system. This paper proposes and outlines a novel six phased approach for how a broadening and deepening knowledge of decision-making in forensic science can be articulated and incorporated into the spheres of research, practice, education, and policy making within forensic science specifically, and the criminal justice system more generally. Phases 1 and 2 set out the importance of systematic examination of the decisions which play a role throughout forensic reconstruction and legal processes. Phase 3 focuses on how these decisions can, and should, be studied to understand the underlying mechanisms and contribute to reducing the occurrence of misleading decisions. Phase 4 highlights the ways in which the results and implications of this research should be communicated to the forensic community and wider criminal justice system. Lastly, the way in which the forensic science domain can move forwards in managing the challenges of human decision-making and create and embed a culture of acceptance and transparency in research, practice and education (learning and training) are presented in phases 5 and 6. A consideration of all 6 connected phases offers a pathway for a holistic approach to improving the transparency and reproducibility of decision making within forensic science. 1 CJS decision map 2 Empirical study of decision mechanisms 3 Communicating the outcomes of decision making research 4 Managing risk 5 Education and training 6

Forensic feature-comparison expertise: Statistical learning facilitates visual comparison performance.

“…Future research should also explore whether explicit diagnosticity training can further improve forensic examiners' knowledge of domain-specific diagnostic features. Given emerging calls for forensic science training to include human factors research (Earwaker, Nakhaeizadeh, Smit, & Morgan, 2019), it is possible that a brief training intervention could be used to improve examiners' real-world visual comparison performance.…”

The Error in “Error Rate”: Why Error Rates Are So Needed, Yet So Elusive

“…Very simply put, an error is when an incorrect decision is made given the information available. However, there are many complex issues to address in determining what counts as an error and the use of the term error (37), which underpins establishing error rates. To start, are all errors equal?…”

Forensic undergraduate education during and after the COVID-19 imposed lockdown: Strategies and reflections from India and the UK

“…Whilst a physical presence at the scene enables students to consider in practice aspects of contamination avoidance, scene control, and evidence recovery methods, often these activities can, perhaps, be a barrier to the more interpretative aspects of crime scene investigation. Through separating the physical application of practical techniques with the more holistic consideration of a crime scene through a virtual approach, it becomes possible to focus the students on aspects of decision making and rationale for activities at the scene, stressing the importance of the interpretative aspects throughout the forensic process, as is key to instill in the next generation of practitioners [ 21 ]. Yet all of this good work needs to be considered in the context of recent research that has shown that 71% of students would struggle with motivation to learn and 63% would feel less prepared to take assignments and assessments with limited face-to-face teaching [ 23 ].…”