CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Morgan RM. Sci. Justice 2017; 57(6): 460-467. |
|
Affiliation |
UCL Centre for the Forensic Sciences, 35 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9EZ, United Kingdom; UCL Security and Crime Science, 35 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9EZ, United Kingdom. Electronic address: ruth.morgan@ucl.ac.uk. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2017, Forensic Science Society, Publisher Elsevier Publishing) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
29173460 |
|
Abstract |
This paper builds on the FoRTE conceptual model presented in part I to address the forms of knowledge that are integral to the four components of the model. Articulating the different forms of knowledge within effective forensic reconstructions is valuable. It enables a nuanced approach to the development and use of evidence bases to underpin decision-making at every stage of a forensic reconstruction by enabling transparency in the reporting of inferences. It also enables appropriate methods to be developed to ensure quality and validity. It is recognised that the domains of practice, research, and policy/law intersect to form the nexus where forensic science is situated. Each domain has a distinctive infrastructure that influences the production and application of different forms of knowledge in forensic science. The channels that can enable the interaction between these domains, enhance the impact of research in theory and practice, increase access to research findings, and support quality are presented. The particular strengths within the different domains to deliver problem solving forensic reconstructions are thereby identified and articulated. It is argued that a conceptual understanding of forensic reconstruction that draws on the full range of both explicit and tacit forms of knowledge, and incorporates the strengths of the different domains pertinent to forensic science, offers a pathway to harness the full value of trace evidence for context sensitive, problem-solving forensic applications. Language: en |
|
Keywords |
Conceptual model; Explicit and tacit knowledge; Forensic reconstruction; Institutional infrastructure; Knowledge production; Trace evidence |