This study is largely of a qualitative nature for two main reasons: the nature of the research demands a qualitative approach and the type of data required by the research demands qualitative techniques and strategies for collection, coding, and analysis. First, the research is concerned with investigating forensic science education which is a new emerging field of education where little is known or published. The nature of the research requires the researcher to generate understandings and discover central themes relating to forensic science education. Second, most of the research data emerges from the perceptions of selected participants about the nature of forensic science knowledge, forensic science practice, and forensic science identity. Therefore, such data requires hours of interviewing for collection and consequent long periods of coding and analysis to categorise data into conceptual attributes and themes. Hence, qualitative strategies are adopted to deal with such data.
125
3.7- Choice of Methodological Approach
This research focuses on a new developing social science field of inquiry: forensic science education. This study aims to generate understandings about: a) the knowledge base of forensic science, b) professional practices within forensic science; and c) the identity of the forensic science field, in an attempt to generate implications about forensic science education and the ways in which knowledge and understanding about forensic science are created, organised and transmitted. The research intends to generate those understandings by locating itself within both the curricula of current forensic science courses/programs offered worldwide, and the perceptions and opinions held by forensic science educators, practitioners and members of associated professions (e.g. barristers and police) about forensic science knowledge, practice, and identity.
This study is investigating a new emerging field of education where little is known or published. Such an investigation would generate complex and unstructured data. Therefore, an overall qualitative approach is best suited to: a) address the research topic, b) fulfil research aims, and c) answer research questions by adopting both document analysis and semi-structured interviews for data collection, coding and analysis.
The major research question and associated supporting research questions are set because understandings and conceptions of this new emerging field are best generated by:
a. conducting a document analysis to study the current status of forensic science education through examining current academic forensic science programs, b. interviewing forensic science educators, practitioners, and associated personnel,
and finally
c. cross-comparing and analysing themes generated by both document analysis and semi-structured interviews.
In order to collect, code, and then analyse sufficient and relevant data, the methodology passed through two stages: document analysis and semi-structured interviews. The inclusion of two stages in data collection initiated the practice of triangulation which has been recommended by many researchers and educators (Chenail, 1997; Burns, 2000; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; and Mathison 1988). In the second stage of the research methodology, the interviews were conducted with three different groups of participants: educators, practitioners, and members of associated professions. This also promoted the triangulation practice, for Wolcott (1988, p. 192) asserts that a researcher should ‘never for a minute rely solely on a single observation, single instrument, or single approach [for] the strength of field work lies in its “triangulation” obtaining information in many ways rather than relying on one’.
The first stage of the research methodology incorporates a small-scale quantitative inquiry, where statistics are used to generate frequency tables and bar charts for data presentations, within a broader qualitative research. This makes the methodology adopted in this research more of a ‘mixed methods’ approach rather than a purely qualitative approach (Richards & Morse, 2007: 93). Having adopted a minor quantitative component through document analysis, the research then employs qualitative strategies and techniques in data collection, coding, and analysis throughout the two phases of the methodology (document analysis and semi-structured interviews). The use of the quantitative approach- though limited- supports the overall qualitative feature of the methodology in answering the research questions.
This research, as emphasised in chapter 1, will focus on a working definition of forensic science that is confined to the application of physical sciences, biological sciences, and other explicitly forensic forms of inquiry and techniques (e.g. crime scene processing, fingerprinting, etc) to matters pertaining to both criminal and civil law; i.e. criminalistics. Such restriction by the working definition will simplify the conduct of this research. However, it cannot ignore the epistemological complexity of forensic science which will be a challenge for the designers of academic forensic science programs.
127
3.7.1- Document Analysis
The first stage of the research methodology is document analysis. Document examination is one of four data collection methods: interviewing, instrument administration, observation, and document examination (Sproull, 1995). Document analysis has been highlighted by many scholars as one of the efficient qualitative methods for data collection and interpretation (Barcan 1993; Kerlinger 1986; Anderson 1997; Sproull, 1995).
Documents can be analysed in a quantitative and/or a qualitative way (Sage, 2009). Document analysis as a method can either stand-alone or be a complementary strategy to other methods (e.g. interviews) within the one research (Sage, 2009). In this research, document analysis was employed as a complementary strategy to semi- structured interviews which comprised the second stage of the research methodology.
John Codd (1988) argues that analysis of documents needs to go beyond the analysis of texts to include that of the contexts in which these texts were written. Documents are ‘not a simple representation of facts or reality’ (Sage, 2009: 257). An individual or an institution produces documents to be used in certain forms to fit a certain purpose; hence, a document should not be analysed in isolation from the profile(s) of the author(s), purpose of the document, and the audience targeted by such document (Sage, 2009). Documents can be seen as a discourse of policies, structures, aims, intentions etc (Codd, 1988).
Codd’s theory of documents as discourses is informed by his reading of Saussure’s work (1974) “Courses in General Linguistics”, where Saussure argues that words in documents are not only expressions of pre-existent ideas and assumptions, but they also comprise sets of social practices which connect and give meaning to individuals and things.
Document analysis has been chosen to constitute the first stage of the research methodology for the following reasons:
i. Forensic science is one of the relatively new fields of practice and higher education, where little has been known or published (Houck, 2006; Mennell, 2006). Moreover, the numbers of programs offering forensic science are steadily increasing (Smallwood, 2006, Houck, 2006). Therefore, it is essential to conduct an investigation on the current status of forensic science education. Such an investigation may best be done through a document analysis of the curricula of current forensic science courses/programs.
ii. The typology which has previously been applied in chapter 1, has prompted the further investigation into published forensic science curricula to generate deeper understandings about:
a) The knowledge base incorporated within these curricula, b) The place and extent of practice within these curricula and c) The identity of the field as reflected by the considered curricula. iii. The examination of the published curricula of current forensic science
courses/programs is essential in identifying ‘grey areas’ within forensic science epistemology and education. These areas await clarifications via more detailed investigation in the second stage of the research methodology. Hence, the questions of the semi-structured interviews were designed in a manner which ensures clarifications of these grey areas and the generation of insights into forensic science education and curriculum.
iv. The minor quantitative component within the document analysis generated statistical charts of significance for forensic science education. These charts were used as prompts for the interviewees during the second stage of research methodology. This initiated cross-comparison between the two stages of the methodology.
129 Document analysis commenced with a list of 190 published forensic science academic programs offered by various institutes worldwide. A selection strategy was then adopted to allow for the final selection of 15 programs which were thoroughly studied and analysed.
3.7.1.1- Data Collection
The list of the 190 worldwide forensic science programs was obtained from a number of forensic science organisations and a number of publications as follows:
American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) [Electronic30
The National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) [Electronic ]. 31
Reddy’s Forensic website [Electronic
]. 32
Training programs offering forensic science (Camenson, 2001: 136) ].
A Selection of institutions offering programs with forensic interest (Genge, 2002: 294).
John Scott suggests four criteria to help researchers decide whether or not to include a specific document in their research (1990:6):
Authenticity: is the evidence genuine and of unquestionable origin?
Credibility: is the evidence free from error and distortion?
Representativeness: is the evidence typical of its kind, and, if not, is the extent of its untypicality known?
Meaning: is the evidence clear and comprehensive?
In order to meet Scott’s Selection Criteria, a multi-stage selection process was established to select 15 programs out of the initial list of 190 programs. These 15 30 02/06/06 31
programs were thoroughly analysed. In addition to meeting Scott’s Selection Criteria, the multi-stage selection process ensured that the selected forensic science programs were:
1. Explicitly identified as ‘forensic’ or explicitly connected with forensic science practice and fall within the research’s working definition of forensic science. 2. Selected from native English-speaking countries which share the same Common
Law heritage on both the legislative and judicial levels.
3. Rich-information so that they produce through their outlines possible conceptual implication(s) of curriculum and pedagogy attributes of identity, practice and knowledge.
4. Representative of the various academic institutions offering these courses/programs worldwide.
5. Representative of all levels of offers: non-award degrees, undergraduate, postgraduate and both undergraduate and postgraduate.
6. Inclusive of Australian forensic courses/programs as the research is conducted in Australia and the semi-structured interviews will be conducted with Australian interviewees.
3.7.1.2- Data Coding and Analysis
During the selection process of the final 15 programs starting from a list of 190 programs, quantitative data analysis was applied on data collected to generate some descriptive statistical charts and graphs using Microsoft Excel (Campbell et al., 2004; Kumar, 2005). The statistical charts analysed the distribution of forensic science programs over: a) various administering departments (e.g. chemistry, biology, criminal
131 justice, or standalone department) and b) various levels of academic offer (e.g. non- award, undergraduate, postgraduate, undergraduate and postgraduate).
Subsequent to the selection of the final set of 15 programs, collected data was coded according to a framework (Appendix C) which emphasised possible conceptual attributes revealed by these courses in relation to forensic science knowledge, practice, and identity. Qualitative analysis considered deeper curriculum and pedagogy factors including the relationship between course aims and objectives on the one hand and course content and delivery of such content on the other. Qualitative data analysis was conducted using Microsoft Word tables which show conceptual attributes of complexity to forensic science as indicated by Appendix C. The qualitative analysis was then related to the quantitative analysis to generate themes of reported curricular and pedagogical features of the selected courses.
The conceptual attributes and implications generated by the document analysis guided the second phase of the research methodology (semi-structured interviews) and were cross-compared and examined with the attributes and implications emerging from the interview data. Document analysis is fully addressed and detailed in the following chapter (Chapter 4).
3.7.2- Semi-Structured Interviewing
The second stage of the research comprised semi-structured interviews. Interviewing is a common research procedure used to elicit information about people’s opinions, attitudes, values, perceptions, beliefs, and behaviours (Kumar, 2005; Sproull, 1995) about issues, topics, and experiences of relevance and significance to the research (Mason, 2002). Interviews involve some form of ‘conversation with a purpose’ (Burgess, 1984:102). There are many different types of interviews, ranging from structured (e.g. surveys), semi-structured, to unstructured interviews (Campbell et al.,
2004). Semi-structured interviewing has been favoured in the methodology over unstructured and structured interviewing, because this approach: a) offers a guide that can be given to the interviewees so that the content of the interview focuses on the crucial issues of the study (Burns, 2000), b) avoids ‘fixed wording or ordering of questions’ as is the case in structured interviews (Burns 2000: 424), and c) keeps away from ‘open ended breadth of data’ as is the case in unstructured interviews (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:652). The content of the semi-structured interviews concentrates on the vital issues that comprise the research questions: concepts of forensic science knowledge, practice, and identity.
The adoption of semi-structured interviews for data collection is appropriate when researchers know ‘enough about the phenomenon or the domain of inquiry in question’ to develop questions which would frame discussions about the topic of study in advance of interviewing, but not enough to ‘be able to anticipate the answers’ (Richards & Morse, 2007: 114). Given the researcher’s prior knowledge and stance, semi-structured interviews were the most appropriate qualitative method to assist the researcher in collecting relevant and significant data capable of answering the research questions.
The semi-structured interviews were guided by the findings of the document analysis as a starting point for prompting interviewees’ perceptions about the nature of knowledge, practice, and identity of forensic science, based on their experiences, understandings, and standpoints.
3.7.2.1- Research Participants
The participants in the semi-structured interviews were chosen to be Australian participants as the research was conducted in Australia. The selected participants represented three categories:
133
The first category of interviewees comprised 4 forensic science educators who possessed experience in teaching forensic science or forensic-related subject(s) and were likely to have informed opinions about curricula and pedagogies adopted in forensic science education. The participants in this category were selected with respect to their experiences, publications and contributions in forensic science education.
The second category of interviewees included 6 forensic science practitioners who worked in various areas within the forensic science field. In order to represent the two major practices within forensic science and the various specialisations within these practices, the interviewees were selected to comprise:
3 field practitioners (a crime scene investigator, a vehicle examination expert, and a firearm expert), and
3 laboratory practitioners (2 forensic biologists and 1 forensic chemist)
The third category of interviewees comprised 4 members of professions associated with forensic science: a barrister (prosecutor), a barrister (defence), a forensic psychologist, and a senior detective (police officer). The inclusion of the barrister category is necessary due to the direct interaction between these personnel and forensic practitioners during trials, when forensic experts present their evidence in a court of law. The inclusion of a detective and a forensic psychologist is justified by the direct interaction between these personnel and forensic practitioners on the crime scene and during the investigation process.
Interviewees were selected and contacted through professional networking: Victorian Forensic Science Centre, National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS), The Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society (ANZFSS), Victoria Barristers (Vic Bar), and Victoria Police. Interview lengths were 1.5- 2 hours on average. This period is considered to be an optimum time frame for gaining rich interview data (Richards and Morse, 2007).
3.7.2.2- Interview Rationale
The interview questions were designed to open up for examining the interviewees’ perceptions about forensic science education and how such an education maps forensic science complexity and reflects forensic science knowledge, practice, and identity. The interview questionnaires for all three groups of participants were based on the one theme: identifying conceptual attributes and themes for each of the three determining factors of forensic science education: forensic science knowledge, practice, and identity. However, the wording and focus of each questionnaire were set differently in a manner to recognise the characteristics of each group of participants and its relation to forensic science. For example, interview questions set for the second group participants mainly focused on the participants’ everyday practice on the crime scene, in the laboratory, and in court, whilst those set for the third group participants concentrated on participants’ regular interactions with forensic practitioners at the crime scene and/or in court.
The questionnaire set for the first group participants (Appendix D) focused on identifying interviewees’ informed opinions and perceptions about forensic science education based on their everyday teaching and research experiences and interactions with forensic science practitioners and members of associated professions. These questions also prompted their overall viewpoint of the identity of forensic science as a field of practice and as a developing higher education field of study and research. Interview questions designed for the second group participants (Appendix E) focused on their everyday practice, activities, and tasks in the field, in the laboratories, and at court. These questions aimed to identify: a) the competencies and skills applied by participants to perform such activities and tasks, b) the training and/or education through which these competencies and skills were acquired, c) the relevance of previous schooling or higher education, if any, to the expertise of these participants and the way they perform their roles, and d) their general overview in relation to forensic science as a field of practice.
135 The third group participants were interviewed (Appendix F) about their regular contacts and experiences with forensic science practitioners. Interview questions to participants of this group focused on their: a) expectations of forensic scientists, b) perceptions of the knowledge base and competencies forensic science practitioners should display, and c) overall viewpoint of forensic science identity.
All interviewees were also asked to comment on the two reports generated by the document analysis about the distribution of forensic science courses with respect to various administering departments (Report A) and the distribution of forensic science courses with respect to the various levels of academic offer (Report B).
3.7.2.3- Data Collection and Transcription
Before conducting any interview, approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Victoria University was sought and granted. Prior to every interview, interviewees were given a plain language information sheet (Appendix G) which briefly described the aims of the research, addressed the research problem, and summarised the research methodology. Interviewees were also asked to sign a consent form (Appendix H) in compliance with the ethics requirements set by the Ethics Committee.
Interviews were conducted and data was collected via tape-recording. Both field notes (descriptive details about the interview) and reflective notes (personal insights, thoughts, feelings, and impressions) were also recorded. These notes assisted the researcher in keeping the interviews appropriately ‘focused’ and were also invaluable in the latter analytical phase of the study. Data collected from interviews was transcribed using Microsoft Word. Transcribed data was then organised into three categories: data collected from a) educators, b) practitioners, and c) members of associated professions.
requirements set by the Ethics Committee. Interviewees’ identities were referred to using alphanumerical codes as follows:
The four forensic science educators were respectively referred to as EP1, EP2, EP3, and EP4.
The six forensic science practitioners were respectively referred to as PP1, PP2,