Redrawing the Boundaries of Criminology: Increasing Forensic Literacy by Including Forensic Studies in the Curriculum

Abstract

Forensic science is a topic of fascination and intrigue, yet popular understandings do not always accord with the realities. Trenchant critiques of forensic science – and how it is used in the criminal justice system – highlight a need for greater forensic literacy amongst criminal justice practitioners. Drawing on 15 years of unit outlines, 10 years of student evaluations and recent reflections by the teaching team, this article documents the development of a suite of forensic studies units at one Australian university. Discussed chronologically, the findings show how the content of units has been shaped over time by critical social sciences research, while their form and intended student body has been influenced by institutional change. Student evaluations consistently noted the benefits of forensic practitioners’ contributions and increases in skills of critical analysis. These findings augment arguments for including forensic studies in the criminology curriculum to best equip practitioners.

Keywords:

• Forensic science
• forensic studies
• teaching in criminology
• higher education

Acknowledgments

We thank the School of Social Sciences staff and Survey Team staff at the University of Tasmania who located data for the study and the many students who have contributed to unit evaluations over the years. We appreciate the organizations that have facilitated teaching contributions to the units, and the many individuals, including academics, forensic practitioners and police officers, who have shared their time and expertise with such generosity, sometimes over many years.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The Frye rule is from a US case that examined evidence from an early form of lie detector, Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923). It requires that the scientific techniques used are generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. By contrast, the Daubert rule asks experts to establish the validity of the technique used and the appropriateness of its application to the case at hand (Julian et al., 2022). It is based on three cases known as the Daubert Trilogy: (1) Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 (1993); (2) General Electric Co v Joiner, 522 US 136 (1997); and (3) Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 525 US 137 (1999).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the School of Social Sciences at the University of Tasmania through funding for research assistance.