Forensic epistemology: exploring case-specific research in forensic science

References

• Kueffer C. Integrative ecological research: case-specific validation of ecological knowledge for environmental problem solving. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc. 2006;15(2):115–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell G, Walker L, Monahan J. Beyond context: social facts as case-specific evidence. Emory Law J. 2011;60(5):1111–1154.
   Google Scholar
• Milliet Q, Delemont O, Sapin E, et al. A methodology to event reconstruction from trace images. Sci Justice. 2015;55(2):107–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulriksen MS, Dadalauri N. Single case studies and theory-testing: the knots and dots of the process-tracing method. Int. J Soc Res. Methodol. 2016;19(2):223–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribaux O, Margot P. Case based reasoning in criminal intelligence using forensic case data. Sci Justice. 2003;43(3):135–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marczyk G, DeMatteo D, Festinger D. Essentials of research design and methodology Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Devers KJ, Frankel RM. Study design in qualitative research–2: Sampling and data collection strategies. Education for Health. 2000;13(2):263.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Triola MF. Elementary statistics. London: Pearson Higher Ed; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Walliman N. Research methods: The basics. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Goudge ST. Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario. Toronto, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Paciocco D. Taking a “Goudge” out of Bluster and Blarney: An” Evidence-Based Approach” to Expert Testimony. Can Crim Law Review. 2009;13(2):135.
   Google Scholar
• NAS. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington: National Academy of Sciences; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Bordens KS, Abbott BB. Research design and methods a process approach. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• PCAST. Report to the President Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature - Comparison Methods (Executive Summary). USA, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Onghena P, Maes B, Heyvaert M. Mixed methods single case research: state of the art and future directions. J Mixed Methods Res. 2018; 13(4):461–480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malina MA, Nørreklit HS, Selto FH. Lessons learned: advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Res Acc Manag. 2011;8(1):59–71.
   Google Scholar
• Damas S, Wilkinson C, Kahana T, et al. Study on the performance of different craniofacial superimposition approaches (II): Best practices proposal. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;257:504–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aboud MJ, Gassmann M, McCord B. Ultrafast STR Separations on Short‐Channel Microfluidic Systems for Forensic Screening and Genotyping. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60(5):1164–1170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mnookin JL, Cole SA, Dror IE, et al. The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences. UCLA Law Rev. 2011;58(3):725–779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langenburg G. Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinations. In: The Fingerprint Sourcebook. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice; 2011. p. 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Kelty SF, Julian R. Success in Forensic Science Research and Other Collaborative Projects: Meeting Your Partners’ Expectations. Forensic Sci Policy Manag Intern J. 2011;2(3):141–147.
   Google Scholar
• Cross R. Fatal falls from a height: two case studies. J Forensic Sci. 2006; 51(1):93–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood R. v. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• MacLean B, Powley K, Dahlstrom D. A Case Study Illustrating another Logical Explanation for High Velocity Impact Spatter. J Can Soc Forensic Sci. 2001;34(4):191–195.
   Google Scholar
• Bryce CFA, Rankin BWJ, Hunt A. A report on the development and implementation of an assessment of competence scheme for the forensic sciences. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2019; 1:56–60.
   Google Scholar
• Millard R. v. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• France R. v. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, Blythe J, Neville AJ, editors. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nursing Forum. 2014; 41(5):545–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foss C, Ellefsen B. The value of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in nursing research by means of method triangulation. J Adv Nurs.. 2002;40(2):242–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IABPA. 2018. [Updated 2018; cited 2018]; Available from: http://www.iabpa.org/.
   Google Scholar
• NVivo. QSR International Pty Ltd; 2018. [updated 2018; cited 2018]; Available from: http://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products.
   Google Scholar
• Kalyal H. “Well, there’s a more scientific way to do it!”: factors influencing receptivity to evidence-based practices in police organizations. Pol Pra Res. 2019; 20:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Gold AD. Expert evidence in criminal law: The scientific approach. Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Mohan RV. Supreme Court of Canada. File no. 23063. 1994;1
   Google Scholar
• Graner R, Kronkvist O. The past, the Present and the Future of Police Research: Proceedings from the Fifth Nordic Police Research Seminar: Linnaeus University Studies in Policing, 2015
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths CT. Economics on policing: baseline for policing research in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety Canada. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre A. Towards a research culture in the forensic sciences. Aust J For Sci. 2013;45(4):381–388.
   Google Scholar
• Steinheider B, Wuestewald T, Boyatzis RE, et al. In search of a methodology of collaboration: understanding researcher–practitioner philosophical differences in policing. Pol Pra Res. 2012;13(4):357–374.
   Google Scholar
• Byard R, Vink R. The law and the laboratory. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014; 2014/12/0110(4):481–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanier M, Briggs LT. Research methods in criminal justice and criminology: A mixed methods approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Zapf PA, Dror IE. Understanding and Mitigating Bias in Forensic Evaluation: Lessons from Forensic Science. Int J Forensic Mental Health. 2017;16(3):227–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catoggio D, Bunford J, Taylor D, et al. An introductory guide to evaluative reporting in forensic science. Aust J For Sci. 2019; 51(suppl 1):S247–S251.
   Google Scholar
• Champod C, Biedermann A, Vuille J, et al. ENFSI Guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science: A primer for legal practitioners. Criminal Law Justice Wkly. 2016;180(10):189–193.
   Google Scholar
• Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, et al. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice. 1998;38(4):231–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, et al. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci Justice. 1998;38(3):151–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson AE, Daniel ES. Inferences of clinical diagnostic reasoning and diagnostic error. J Biomed Inform. 2011; 44(3):402–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orr A, Illes M, Beland J, et al. Validation of Sherlock, a linear trajectory analysis program for use in bloodstain pattern analysis. Can Soc Forensic Sci J. 2019; 52(2):78–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Illes M, Boue M. Robust estimation for area of origin in bloodstain pattern analysis via directional analysis. Forensic Sci Int. 2013; Mar 10226(1-3):223–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly C, Illes M, Fraser J. Affect of impact angle variations on area of origin determination in bloodstain pattern analysis. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;223(1-3):233–240. Nov 30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bruin KG, Stoel RD, Limborgh JC. Improving the point of origin determination in bloodstain pattern analysis. J Forensic Sci. 2011; Nov56(6):1476–1482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman SD, Kavetski M, Mueller DH. Cognitive Bias in the Legal System: Police Officers Evaluate Ambiguous Evidence in a Belief-Consistent Manner. J App Res Mem Cogn. 2017;6(2):193–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann C, Kaye D, Jackson G, et al. Presenting Quantitative and Qualitative Information on Forensic Science Evidence in the Courtroom. Chance. 2016;29(1):37–43.
   Google Scholar
• McKim CA. The Value of Mixed Methods Research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2017;11(2):202–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar