The document analysis commenced with a list of 190 worldwide education institutes offering forensic science academic programs. These programs were found to incorporate one or more forensic science courses. For instance, a number of universities offered forensic science as single courses within science departments, whilst other universities offered forensic programs which comprised 2 or more forensic science courses. Hence, throughout this chapter, the term ‘programs’ refers to forensic science academic programs which included one or more forensic science courses. This list of 190 forensic science programs (Table-4a; attached Appendix I) was formed following an inspection of various sources which provided information about institutes offering forensic science education. These sources are as follows:
The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) [Electronic33]
Training programs offering forensic science (Camenson, 2001: 136)
A Selection of institutions offering programs with forensic interest (Genge, 2002: 294)
The National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) [Electronic34]
Reddy’s Forensic website [Electronic35
33 ] 34 35
145
4.3- Selection Criteria
After the list of the 190 institutes offering forensic science programs had been established (Table-4a), a set of selection criteria was developed to enable the selection of programs for inclusion in the final analysis. The selection criteria were established to ensure that the final 15 forensic science programs examined in the document analysis were:
1. Identified as ‘forensic’ science programs and fell within the research’s working definition of forensic science (criminalistics).
2. Offered in native English-speaking countries which share the same British Common Law heritage on both the legislative and judicial levels. This selection condition was informed by the fact that forensic science is about science that pertains to law. Hence, the selection of forensic programs offered by education institutes in countries whose legal systems are similar made the analysis of the curricula of those programs less complicated.
3. Information-rich in course descriptions which allowed assessments of possible conceptual implication(s) of the programs’ curricular and pedagogical attributes of knowledge, practice, and identity.
4. Representative of the various academic institutions offering these programs worldwide.
5. Representative of all levels of offers: non-award degrees, undergraduate, postgraduate and both undergraduate and postgraduate.
6. Representative of the Australian forensic science programs as the research was conducted in Australia and the semi-structured interviews were undertaken with Australian interviewees.
To achieve these aims, the selection criteria were applied to the list of 190 forensic science programs across three stages: exclusion-based criterion, representative classification criterion, and points-based criterion.
4.3.1- The First Stage of Selection: Exclusion-Based Criterion
The first stage of selection was based on the method of exclusion-based criterion, where the 190 listed forensic science programs were examined against 5 exclusion factors. These exclusion factors were:
a. The program was offered in a non- native-English-speaking country whose legislative system held no connections with the British Common Law.
b. The website of the program was not available (i.e. URL address cannot be located). c. The program did not fall within the research’s working definition of ‘forensic science’. For example, programs offering courses in forensic anthropology, archaeology, and psychology were omitted.
d. The program’s outline was not an information-rich one. This was determined by the lack of:
Content description (subject description) for both undergraduate degrees and postgraduate degrees by course-work.
Research aim and significance for postgraduate degrees by research.
e. The program’s outline did not emphasise its aim(s)/objective(s) and possible career opportunities upon graduation.
It was enough for a program to fall under one of the exclusion factors (a, b, c, d, or e) to be excluded from the list of the programs which were nominated for the second and third stages of the selection criteria. The exclusion-based criterion ensured that any program which passed its exclusion factors and, as a consequence, was nominated to the second stage of selection, at least enjoyed all of the following characteristics:
147
It fell within the research’s working definition of ‘forensic science’.
It was offered in a native English-speaking country which had a legislative system that followed or was connected to the British Common Law.
Its outline was detailed with respect to content description.
Its outline emphasised its aims/ objectives and possible career opportunities.
Prior to applying the exclusion-based criterion, the list of the 190 forensic science programs (Table- 4a in Appendix I) were randomly coded in order to keep the identity of the institutes offering such programs anonymous. Each of the 190 programs was assigned a code which started with the first three letters of the word “forensic” and ended with three random digits. The code of each program had the general form of: ‘FOR # # #’, where each of the ‘#’ symbols was replaced by a digit. This anonymous coding process complied with the research code of ethics, set by Victoria University. The complete table (Table- 4b) which shows the implementation of the exclusion- based criterion on all 190 forensic science programs is attached at Appendix I. Following is a sample table showing the implementation of this selection criterion on a number of forensic science programs.
Sample Table of the Exclusion-Based Criterion
Program Code Exc-a Exc-b Exc-c Exc-d Exc-e Result
FOR-650 1 ∗ 1 1 0• _ Excluded FOR-651 1 1 0 _ _ Excluded FOR-654 1 1 1 1 1 Passed FOR-660 1 1 1 1 1 Passed FOR-552 1 1 1 1 0 Excluded FOR-458 1 1 1 1 1 Passed FOR-306 1 1 1 1 1 Passed FOR-704 0 _ _ _ _ Excluded FOR-758 1 1 1 1 1 Passed FOR-850 1 0 _ _ _ Excluded Sample Table-4b
∗ Pro-numeral 1 represents when course/ program passed the exclusion factor
After applying the exclusion-based criterion on the 190 listed forensic science programs, the following results were obtained (Table-4c):
Table-4c
The 78 programs which were nominated for the second stage of the selection criteria are listed in Table-4d.
List of the 78 Forensic Science Programs Nominated for the Second Stage of the Selection Criteria: Representative Classification Criterion.
FOR-654 FOR-308 FOR-257 FOR-362 FOR-558 FOR-762 FOR-301 FOR-251 FOR-307
FOR-660 FOR-309 FOR-264 FOR-363 FOR-559 FOR-763 FOR-354 FOR-550 FOR-256
FOR-451 FOR-316 FOR-266 FOR-364 FOR-560 FOR-765 FOR-755 FOR-775 FOR-360
FOR-453 FOR-325 FOR-273 FOR-365 FOR-561 FOR-766 FOR-302 FOR-252 FOR-556
FOR-456 FOR-326 FOR-276 FOR-370 FOR-705 FOR-767 FOR-356 FOR-551 FOR-759
FOR-458 FOR-327 FOR-277 FOR-371 FOR-706 FOR-769 FOR-757 FOR-804 FOR-851
FOR-459 FOR-328 FOR-351 FOR-374 FOR-709 FOR-771 FOR-306 FOR-255 FOR-805
FOR-465 FOR-330 FOR-352 FOR-375 FOR-715 FOR-773 FOR-358 FOR-554 FOR-758
FOR-468 FOR-250 FOR-353 FOR-377 FOR-754 FOR-774
Table-4d
The Outcome of the Implementation of the Exclusion-Based Criterion
Excluded Programs Passed Programs
112 programs were excluded for the following reasons:
• 49 programs fell under exclusion factor: a, b, or c.
• 63 programs fell under exclusion factor: d or e.
78 programs passed the exclusion process as these programs:
• were offered in English speaking countries,
• possessed valid website addresses,
• fell within the research’s definition of forensic science,
• provided detailed content description,
• emphasised their aims/objectives and potential career opportunities.
149
4.3.2- The Second Stage of Selection: Representative Classification Criterion
In this stage, the 78 programs which passed the first stage of the selection criteria (exclusion-based criterion) were categorised into 5 groups ranked I, II, III, IV & V. Categorization into 5 groups was conducted according to the level of academic offer of the course(s) included in each of the 78 programs:
Group I: Programs leading to non-awards degrees in forensic science (e.g. Certificates, Diplomas, and Associate Degrees).
Group II: Programs leading to minor degrees in forensic science associated with major undergraduate degrees (e.g. a bachelor degree in a major discipline such as chemistry, whilst offering forensic science as a minor degree, option, or emphasis).
Group III: Programs leading to major undergraduate degrees in forensic science (e.g. BSc in forensic science, BA in forensic science, Bachelor of Technology in forensic science, etc).
Group IV: Programs leading to postgraduate degrees in forensic science (e.g. Postgraduate diplomas and Master’s in forensic science).
Group V: Programs offering both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in forensic science.
In addition to categorising each of the 78 selected programs into one of five specific groups (Groups I-V), the titles of the administering department of each program were noted next to this program as presented by sample Table-4e (The complete table: Table-4e is attached at Appendix I). The purpose behind such categorising and classification was to assist in the generation of some descriptive statistics.
Sample Table of the Categorisation and Classification of the 78 Passed Programs Program Code Categorizing Group Administering Department
FOR-654 I Administration of Justice Program
FOR-660 II Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice
FOR-451 IV Multi-Departmental Course
FOR-458 II Department of Chemistry
FOR-306 III Department of Criminal Justice
FOR-325 III College of Science and Mathematics
FOR-715 III Department of Chemical and Forensic Science
FOR-758 III School of Biological Science and Biotechnology
FOR-763 V Department of Laboratory and Forensic Science
FOR-773 III Faculty of Science and Information of Technology
FOR-805 III Inter-Faculty Program
Sample Table-4e
Prior to proceeding to the third stage of the selection criteria, statistical analysis was conducted on the data presented in Table-4e (Appendix I). Statistical analysis generated two bar charts. The first chart (Figure-4a) represents the distribution of the 78 selected forensic science programs with respect to administering departments. The second chart (Figure-4b) represents the distribution of those programs with respect to their academic level of offer.
151
Chemistry Departments Stand-alone Forensic Science Departments Other (Science) Departments Departments of Criminal Justice Other Departments Biology Departments Multi-Departmental Programs Public Safety Departments
22.50% 16.25% 15% 13.75% 11.25% 10% 6.25% 5%