Loene M. Howes

Forensic scientists’ conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report-users?

Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored.

The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of DNA analysis

DNA evidence can be extremely compelling. With ongoing scientific advances and applications of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, it is increasingly important that police, lawyers, and judges recognise both the limitations of DNA evidence and the strength of the evidence in particular cases. Because most forensic sciences are formally communicated via expert reports, we analysed the readability of 68 such reports of DNA evidence from 6 of 8 Australian jurisdictions. We conducted content analyses using three categories: content and sequence, language, and format. Categories contained qualitative and quantitative items drawn from theory and past research. Report styles differed by jurisdiction and by main audience - police and the courts. Reports for police were brief and few links were made between sections in these reports. Reports for courts were less brief and used either legal or scientific styles. Common sections in reports for courts included: the scientists specialised knowledge; laboratory accreditation information; item list; results; and notes on interpretation. Sections were often not in a logical sequence, due to the use of appendices. According to Flesch Reading Ease scores, reports for police had language that was fairly difficult, and reports for courts, difficult. Difficulty was compounded by the use of specialist terms. Reports for police and the appendices of reports for court often used very small font and single line spacing. Many reports for court contained tables that spanned several pages. Suggestions based on theory and past research are provided to assist scientists to enhance the readability of reports for non-scientists.

The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system: A review of theory and proposed directions for research.

Clear communication about forensic science is essential to the effectiveness and perceived trustworthiness of the criminal justice system. Communication can be seen as a meaning-making process that involves different components such as the sender of a message, the message itself, the channel in which a message is sent, and the receiver of the message. Research conducted to date on the communication between forensic scientists and non-scientists in the criminal justice system has focused on different components of the communication process as objects of study. The purpose of this paper is to bring together communication theory and past research on the communication of forensic science to contribute to a deeper understanding of it, and to provide a coherent view of it overall. The paper first outlines the broader context of communication theory and science communication as a backdrop to forensic science communication. Then it presents a conceptual framework as a way to organise past research and, using the framework, reviews recent examples of empirical research and commentary on the communication of forensic science. Finally the paper identifies aspects of the communication of forensic science that may be addressed by future research to enhance the effectiveness of communication between scientists and non-scientists in this multidisciplinary arena.

Response to Recommendation 2 of the 2009 NAS Report—Standards for Formatting and Reporting Expert Evaluative Opinions: Where Do We Stand?

ABSTRACT Over four years ago, the 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science was published, revealing that few formal standards existed in the forensic sciences. The second recommendation of the NAS report related to the language of reporting. This two-fold recommendation urged that templates for expert reports be developed and that the language and terminology of the reports and related expert testimony be standardized. This paper offers a response to Recommendation 2 of the NAS report and a research update. Since the release of the NAS report, Standards Australia has developed a set of forensic standards, including one for reporting. In light of Recommendation 2 of the NAS report and the Australian Standard for reporting, we outline current reporting practices of forensic science in the Australian context, and review research about the communication of forensic science, highlighting recent Australian research undertaken at two universities. We discuss the progress made to date in the development of best practice in expert reports and language use, introduce new directions for developing communicative excellence amongst forensic scientists, and suggest future research directions.

Life Course Research Design: Exploring Career Change Experiences of Former School Teachers and Police Officers

Once associated with lifetime employment, policing and teaching have become increasingly associated with employee attrition. We used a life course research design to explore career turning points and transitions, in the context of preceding and following careers. Former police officers (n = 9) and former teachers (n = 15) from around Australia participated in 30- to 60-min interviews about their careers and career decision making. Transcribed interview responses were analyzed using contextualizing and categorizing methods. Although participants’ experiences of ruptures preceding voluntary career change differed, the theme of feeling undervalued as a result of ruptures was common among participants. Participants felt valued in subsequent careers when prior skills were recognized and opportunities existed to acquire and apply new skills. Practical implications include the need for organizations to offer supportive workplace environments that value individual members and their contributions.

Developing the Methodology for an Applied, Interdisciplinary Research Project: Documenting the Journey Toward Philosophical Clarity:

Methodologists have urged researchers who use mixed methods to justify their methodological choices and provide greater clarity about the philosophical underpinnings and implications of their approaches. This article outlines the reasoning process undertaken in an endeavor to develop philosophical clarity for an applied, interdisciplinary, mixed methods research project about the communication of scientific evidence in the legal system. I used Greene’s domains of methodology for social inquiry as a framework for addressing reflexive questions about assumptions. Flowing from the domains of values and philosophies, the logic of inquiry was developed before the implications for the integration of findings and reporting of research were outlined. Early engagement in reflexive questioning provided a foundation for methodological refinement throughout the ongoing research journey.

A step towards increased understanding by non-scientists of expert reports: recommendations for readability

Communication about forensic science to non-scientists is a key aspect of the role of forensic scientists – and one that poses significant challenges. Police, lawyers, and judges read expert reports written by forensic scientists, and jurors usually have the content of such reports explained to them in court. Readability can be defined as the ease with which something can be read as a function of the way it is written. This paper draws on past studies of the readability of Australian expert reports of DNA analysis and forensic comparison of glass, and conclusions written as part of an international proficiency test of forensic comparison of glass. The purpose of the paper is twofold: (1) to alert scientists to the most common readability issues identified in the studies; and (2) to suggest solutions to these readability issues drawn from theory and past research. The suggested solutions may be helpful to case-reporting scientists in affirming their current practices or in modifying those practices to enhance the readability of their expert reports for non-scientist report readers.

Discord in the Communication of Forensic Science Can the Science of Language Help Foster Shared Understanding

The criminal justice system is one arena in which nonscientists use scientific findings and expert opinions to aid decision making. Forensic science is a standard feature of criminal investigations, out-of-court settlements, and trials. Yet forensic science may be poorly understood by those who use it as a decision aid, with a consequent risk of contributing to miscarriages of justice. In this article, we discuss some of the contentious aspects of communicating expert opinion, and consider how research suggests that scientists might balance the competing concerns of scientific correctness and comprehensibility for nonscientists. Highlighting both research and theory, we argue that modifying language is a necessary component of ensuring understanding. However, the aim of transferring knowledge from a forensic scientist to a nonscientist is a complex task. Language modification alone is not sufficient; the practices and processes of communication require consideration. We argue that the dialogue and participation models of communication have much to offer to foster understanding of forensic science and enhance its value in the criminal justice system. We acknowledge some practical challenges to dialogue and participation approaches, and provide an example of how innovative organisational practices can help to facilitate effective interprofessional communication.

Predicting career stability and mobility: Embeddedness and boundarylessness

This study tested occupational embeddedness and boundaryless career attitudes as a complementary explanation for career stability and mobility, in occupations previously known for lifetime employment. Current and former Australian teachers and police officers (n = 315) completed an online survey about their careers. Consistent with the hypothesis, logistic regression analyses confirmed that embeddedness-related variables such as financial responsibility and age predicted having made an active decision to stay in the chosen occupation, and boundaryless career attitudes predicted having left that occupation to change careers. Contrary to the hypothesis, years in the career predicted a history of mobility and years of career-specific education did not add predictive utility to the model. Overall, the findings partially supported the complementary explanation for career stability and mobility. By including current and former occupational members, and identifying predictors of career behavior, this study contributed to deeper understanding of the changing nature of previously lifelong careers.

'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.