Forensic science and gendered organizations: an exploratory study of crime scene examiners

ABSTRACT

Crime scene examination is uniquely positioned at the nexus of policing and forensic science. Although women are under-represented in policing organizations and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers, they are reportedly well-represented in certain forensic disciplines. As a forensic discipline located within policing organizations, crime scene examination offers an interesting case study for an exploration of gender in the organizational context. In this exploratory study, in-depth interviews were undertaken with five male and four female crime scene examiners (CSEs) from two Australian policing organizations. Participants provided insights on various aspects of their work. Gender differences were evident in nuanced ways in some of these aspects. Female CSEs reported the importance of rank in circumventing differential treatment by colleagues outside the crime scene team. The uptake of part-time and flexible work arrangements differed in ways that reflect broader social trends, with negative impacts on careers borne by women with caring responsibilities. The findings highlight the gendered nature of organizations. Although some important steps have been made, gender equity is yet to be achieved. The article contributes to understanding the complexity of CSEs’ role and the impacts of gendered organizations. It identifies areas in need of further research.

KEYWORDS:

• Policing
• crime scene examiners
• gender
• forensic science

Acknowledgments

We appreciate Dr Linzi Wilson-Wilde’s support of the project. We thank the research committees of the two organisations that agreed to contribute to the research and those within the organisations who facilitated the process. We thank the participants for their willingness to participate in the research and generosity in sharing their experiences. Finally, thank you to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this point.