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

ABSTRACT

Despite increased use of forensic science in police investigations, relatively few studies have examined how well forensic science is communicated to police investigators. This study explored practitioners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of such communication in Australian jurisdictions. Sixty-five participants, consisting of police (investigators, n = 28; and liaison officers, n = 10) and case-reporting scientists (forensic biologists, n = 16; and trace evidence examiners, n = 11), participated in semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically and the communication process from crime scene to court was examined in light of a conceptual model of forensic science communication. One-way communication was appropriate throughout the process for most routine cases. However, in other cases, two-way communication was important. Specifically, participants viewed discussion as necessary for police investigators, to facilitate on-the-job learning about forensic science generally, and to clarify aspects of forensic science in particular cases, especially serious cases, or when the science was complex, unfamiliar to investigators, or relied upon to advance the case. In addition, participants considered discussion helpful for forensic scientists in understanding the information needs of police investigators, and essential at the managerial level to ensure that operational priorities relating to forensic science were aligned. The implications include the need for further refinement of written reports and online systems, and more explicit recognition of the value of discussion as one component of effective communication about forensic science, both to enhance professional development, and to prevent information loss.

KEYWORDS:

• Forensic science
• expert evidence
• communication
• police investigators

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the research committees of policing organisations and the directors of forensic scientific laboratories in participating jurisdictions for their support of the project: Australian Federal Police; ChemCentre (Western Australia); Forensic Science South Australia; New South Wales Forensic Analytical Science Service; New South Wales Police Force; Northern Territory Police, Fire, and Emergency Services; PathWest Laboratory Medicine Western Australia; Queensland Police Service; Tasmania Department of Police and Emergency Management; Victoria Police; and Western Australia Police. Special thanks to the interview participants for sharing their time, insights and experiences. Thanks to the supervisors of the research project, Associate Professor Roberta Julian, Dr Nenagh Kemp, Professor Paul Kirkbride, and Dr Sally Kelty for their support. Thanks to Leanne Wisbey and Tessa Batt for their assistance with the transcription of interviews.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Loene M. Howes http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5656-6121

Additional information

Funding

The conduct of this study was made possible by the provision of financial support to the author through an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) scholarship. The APA scholarship was augmented by funds from the industry sponsor, Australian Federal Police (AFP) Forensics. Assistance with the transcription of interviews was financed by a grant from the Criminology, Law and Policing Research Group and the School of Social Sciences Postgraduate Research Fund at the University of Tasmania.