Success in Forensic Science Research and Other Collaborative Projects: Meeting Your Partners’ Expectations

The Routledge International Handbook of Forensic Intelligence and Criminology

“…At least, it appears traditional quality management removes opportunities for an alternative conceptualisation approach that would better focus on formation, education, selection and supervision of practitioners (Horswell 2004, Kelty and Julian 2010, Kelty and Julian 2011a, Kelty and Julian 2012, Crispino, Rossy et al 2014, or define dedicated forensic science research (Mnookin, Cole et al 2011, Kelty and Julian 2011b, Margot 2011b, which would address the various types of inferences developed at the early phase of the investigation (Peirce 1898, 1995, Ginzburg 1984, Ginzburg 1989, Baber, Smith et al 2006, Pape 2008, Schuliar and Crispino 2013, Hazard 2014, Bitzer, Albertini et al 2015. Finally, do certification and quality management strive after helping or coercing practitioners (Crispino, Touron et al 2001, Kolowski 2015 ?…”

Partnership between academics and practitioners – Addressing the challenges in forensic science

“…'Bridging the Gap' between academics and practitioners is seen as key factor [18] and research shows that success is negatively affected when this gap is not dealt with [19,20]. Failure to agree priorities, and lack of cooperation between academics and practitioners in forensic science is recognised [20] and without the explicit definition of needs and expected outcomes in a collaboration, each partner involved may have different expectations in relation to the direction and outcomes [21].…”

Is the (traditional) Galilean science paradigm well suited to forensic science?

“…Although the intent was sound, this approach reinforced the silo culture in forensic science, by restricting forensic inputs to well‐established identification techniques. However, it did provide an improved but still disparate academic involvement (Canter, ; Fleming, ; Fyfe & Wilson, ; Guillaume, Sidebottom, & Tilley, ; Kelty & Julian, ; Paterson, ; Rojek, Alpert, & Smith, ; Ross, ; Roux, Talbot‐Wright, Robertson, Crispino, & Ribaux, ; Steinheider, Wuestewald, Boyatzis, & Kroutter, ). The current situation could fall short of satisfying both the scientific and legal communities, without a better understanding of science and its forensic offspring (Crispino, Ribaux, Houck, & Margot, ; De Forest, ; Evett, ; Judge Edwards, ).…”