‘Sometimes I give up on the report and ring the scientist': bridging the gap between what forensic scientists write and what police investigators read

Policing and Society

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 541-559

  Howes, Loene M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

communication; expert evidence; Forensic science; police investigators

Indexed keywords

EID: 84945219432     PISSN: 10439463     EISSN: 14772728     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10439463.2015.1089870     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bedford, K., 2011. Forensic science service provider models:is there a “best” option?. Australian journal of forensic sciences, 43 (2–3), 147–156. doi:10.1080/00450618.2010.541498
2. Birzer, M.L., 2003. The theory of andragogy applied to police training. Policing:an international journal of police strategies and management, 26 (1), 29–42. doi:10.1108/13639510310460288
3. Braun, V., and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4. Brown, C., Ross, A., and Attewell, R.G., 2014. Benchmarking forensic performance in Australia–volume crime. Forensic science policy and management:an international journal, 5 (3-4), 91–98. doi:10.1080/19409044.2014.981347
5. Bucchi, M., 2008. Of deficits, deviations and dialogues:theories of public communication of science. In:M., Bucchi and B., Trench, eds. Handbook of public communication of science and technology. New York, NY:Routledge, 57–76.
6. Campos, M.N., 2007. Ecology of meanings:a critical constructivist communication model. Communication theory, 17 (4), 386–410. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00304.x
7. Cashman, K., and Henning, T., 2012. Lawyers and DNA:issues in understanding and challenging the evidence. Current issues in criminal justice, 24 (1), 69–83.
8. De Keijser, J., and Elffers, H., 2012. Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals. Psychology, crime and law, 18 (2), 191–207. doi:10.1080/10683161003736744
9. Dror, I.E., and Hampikian, G., 2011. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science and justice, 51 (4), 204–208. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004
10. Esseiva, P., et al., 2007. Forensic drug intelligence:an important tool in law enforcement. Forensic science international, 167 (2–3), 247–254. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.032
11. Found, B., and Edmond, G., 2012. Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence:recommendations for forensic specialists. Australian journal of forensic sciences, 44 (2), 193–196. doi:10.1080/00450618.2011.644260
12. Goodman-Delahunty, J., and Hewson, L., 2010. Improving jury understanding and use of expert evidence AIC Reports. Canberra:Australian Institute of Criminology, vol. 37.
13. Howes, L.M., et al., 2013. Forensic scientists' conclusions:how readable are they for non-scientist report-users?. Forensic science international, 231 (1–3), 102–112. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026
14. Howes, L.M., 2015a. A step towards increased understanding by non-scientists of expert reports:recommendations for readability. Australian journal of forensic sciences. doi:10.1080/00450618.2015.1004194
15. Howes, L.M., 2015b. The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system:a review of theory and proposed directions for research. Science and justice. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2014.11.002
16. Howes, L.M., Julian, R., et al., 2014. The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users:reports of DNA analysis. Forensic science international, 237, 7–18. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.007
17. Howes, L.M., Kirkbride, K.P., et al., 2014. The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users:reports of forensic comparison of glass. Forensic science international, 236, 54–66. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.031
18. Howes, L.M., Martire, K.A., and Kelty, S.F., 2014. Response to recommendation 2 of the 2009 NAS Report–Standards for formatting and reporting expert evaluative opinions:where do we stand?. Forensic science policy and management:an international journal, 5 (1–2), 1–14.
19. Julian, R., Kelty, S., and Robertson, J., 2012. Get it right the first time:critical issues at the crime scene. Current issues in criminal justice, 24 (1), 25–37.
20. Kassin, S.M., Dror, I.E., and Kukucka, J., 2013. The forensic confirmation bias:problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2 (1), 42–52. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
21. Kelty, S.F., Julian, R., and Ross, A., 2013. Dismantling the justice silos:avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law. Forensic science international, 230 (1–3), 8–15. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.10.032
22. Martire, K.A., et al., 2013. The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence:verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and human behavior, 37 (3), 197–207. doi:10.1037/lhb0000027
23. Mason, J., 2002. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. London:Sage Publications.
24. Mnookin, J.L., 2001. Scripting expertise:the history of handwriting identification evidence and the judicial construction of reliability. Virginia law review, 87 (8), 1723–1845. doi:10.2307/1073905
25. National Academy of Sciences. 2009. Strengthening forensic science in the US:a path forward. Washington,DC:National Academies Press.
26. Oliva, J.R., and Compton, M.T., 2010. What do police officers value in the classroom?. Policing:an international journal of police strategies and management, 33 (2), 321–338. doi:10.1108/13639511011044911
27. Peters, H.P., 2008. Scientists as public experts. In:M., Bucchi and B., Trench, eds. Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Abingdon:Routledge, 131–146.
28. Peterson, J.L., 2015. A historical review of the demand for forensic evidence. In:K.J., Strom and M.J., Hickman, eds. Forensic science and the administration of justice:critical issues and directions. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 3–19.
29. Roberts, P., 2002. Science, experts, and criminal justice:common sense, science, superstition, and scepticism. In:M., McConville and G., Wilson, eds. The handbook of the criminal justice system. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 253–284.
30. Robertson, J., 2012. Should forensic science services be independent of policing? A critical reflection. Current issues in criminal justice, 24 (1), 131–137.
31. Schroeder, D.A., and White, M.D., 2009. Exploring the use of DNA evidence in homicide investigations:implications for detective work and case clearance. Police quarterly, 12 (3), 319–342. doi:10.1177/1098611109339894
32. Shannon, C.E., and Weaver, W., 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press.
33. Siegel, J.A., King, M., and Reed, W., 2013. The laboratory report project. Forensic science policy and management:an international journal, 4 (3–4), 68–78. doi:10.1080/19409044.2013.858798
34. Smith, L.L., Bull, R., and Holliday, R., 2011. Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence:investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength. Journal of forensic sciences, 56 (2), 409–414. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01671.x
35. Strom, K.J., and Hickman, M.J., 2010. Unanalyzed evidence in law enforcement agencies:a national examination of forensic processing in police departments. Criminology and public policy, 9 (2), 381–404. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00635.x
36. Strom, K.J. and Hickman, M.J., 2015. Rethinking the role of the crime laboratory in criminal justice decision making. In:K.J., Strom and M.J., Hickman, eds. Forensic science and the administration of justice:criticalissues and directions. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 235–244.
37. Thompson, W.C., 2011. What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence?. Australian journal of forensic sciences, 43 (2–3), 123–134. doi:10.1080/00450618.2010.541499
38. Vincent, F., 2010. Report:inquiry into the circumstances that led to the conviction of Mr Farah Abdulkadir Jama. Melbourne:State Government of Victoria.
39. Werth, E.P., 2011. Scenario training in police academies:developing students’ higher-level thinking skills. Police Practice and Research:An International Journal, 12 (4), 325–340. doi:10.1080/15614263.2011.563970