Forensic Science Education and Training E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 676

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

A comprehensive and innovative guide to teaching, learning and assessment in forensic science education and practitioner training

• Includes student exercises for mock crime scene and disaster scenarios
• Addresses innovative teaching methods including apps and e-gaming
• Discusses existing and proposed teaching methods

Leseprobe

Forensic Science Education and Training

A Tool-kit for Lecturers and Practitioner Trainers

Edited by

Anna Williams

School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, UK

John P. Cassella

Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science, Staffordshire University, UK

Peter D.Maskell

School of Science, Engineering and Technology, Abertay University, UK

This edition first published 2017 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Anna Williams, John P. Cassella, and Peter D. Maskell to be identified as the editors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered OfficesJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial OfficeThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyThe publisher and the authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every situation. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. The fact that an organization or website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or website may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this works was written and when it is read. No warranty may be created or extended by any promotional statements for this work. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any damages arising herefrom.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Williams, Anna, (Forensic anthropologist), editor. | Cassella, John P., editor. | Maskell, Peter D. Title: Forensic science education and training : a tool-kit for lecturers and practitioner trainers / edited by Anna Williams, John Cassella, Peter D. Maskell. Description: Chichester, UK ; Hoboken : Wiley, 2017. | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016049894 | ISBN 9781118689233 (hardback) | ISBN 9781118689165 (Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781118689158 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Forensic sciences–Study and teaching (Higher)--Great Britain. | BISAC: MEDICAL / Forensic Medicine. Classification: LCC HV8073 .F 2017 | DDC 363.25071/141--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016049894

Cover design: Wiley

Cover images: (top) courtesy of Kris Thomson; (inset images) courtesy of John P. Cassella

This book is dedicated to Dave Rogers who sadly passed away before the publication and never got to see the fruits of his efforts.

CONTENTS

List of Contributors

Note

Foreword

Acknowledgements

1 Forensic Science Education – The Past and the Present In and Out of the Classroom

Introduction

Conclusions and Implications for Teaching and Practice

References

Further Resources

2 Forensic Anthropology Teaching Practice

Introduction

Practical Teaching Methods

Use Of Human Skeletal Material For Teaching Purposes

Alternatives to Human Skeletal Material

Teaching Forensic Anthropology Theory

Forensic Cases as Training

Assessment Methods

Post-Mortem Examinations

Conclusions

References

Further Resources

3 Considerations in Using a Crime Scene House Facility for Teaching and Learning

References

4 Taphonomy Facilities as Teaching Aids

Introduction

History of Taphonomic Research in Forensic Science

Taphonomy Research Facilities

Teaching Forensic Taphonomy

Establishment of a Taphonomy Facility for Teaching and Research

The Future of Taphonomy Facilities

Conclusions

References

5 Forensic Fire Investigation

Introduction

Fire and Explosion Investigation Module

Fire Scene Simulation

Conclusions

Future Developments

Recommended Resources

References

Further Reading

6 Digital Forensics Education

Introduction

Challenges in Digital Forensics Education

Other Discussions in Digital Forensics Education

Summary

References

7 A Strategy for Teaching Forensic Investigation with Limited Resources

Introduction

Historical Background

Methodology

Results

Analysis

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Appendix 7.A: Budget Information for Forensic Investigation Scenario

Appendix 7.B: Information on Testing Available for Forensic Investigation Scenario

Appendix 7.C: Suggested Schedule for Delivery of This Style of Module

References

8 Improving the PhD Through Provision of Skills Training for Postgraduate Researchers

Introduction

Study of Student Perception of Training Needs

Training Course Attendance and Usefulness

Training Course Delivery

Conclusions

References

9 Educational Forensic E-gaming as Effective Learning Environments for Higher Education Students

Introduction

Background

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Glossary

References

Further Resources

10 Virtual Anatomy Teaching Aids

Introduction

Virtual Anatomy in Healthcare Education

Forensic and Virtual Autopsy Imaging

Advanced Clinical and Procedural Training

Conclusions

References

11 Online Teaching Aids

Introduction

Employability and Transferrable Skills

Online Learning Management Systems

Note-taking Apps – The Age of Evernote and OneNote

Scientific Demonstration Apps

Within the Forensic Curriculum

Practical Guidance for Using Online Tools

Social Networks and Forums

Deciding Which Technology to Use

Conclusions

References

12 Simulation, Immersive Gameplay and Virtual Realities in Forensic Science Education

Introduction

Terms of Reference

Serious Games

Simulation-based Real Environment Learning in Professional Forensic Training

Hydra Augmented Reality

Virtual Reality

Crime Science Investigators (CSIs)

Augmented Reality

Augmented Virtuality

Virtual Reality

Conclusions

References

Notes

13 Training Forensic Practitioners in DNA Profiling

Introduction

Prior Knowledge

Setting the Scene: Expectations

Preconceptions and Common Misconceptions

Introductory Concepts

Intermediate Concepts

Advanced Concepts

Specialist Techniques

In The Court of Appeal

Teaching Principles

Appendix 13.A: Low Level Profile Examples

References

Notes

14 The Forensic Investigation of Sexual Offences: Practitioner Course Design and Delivery

Introduction

Starting Points

Evidence Types

The Body as a Crime Scene: Information from the Forensic Medical Examination

Setting the Strategy

Interpretation of Findings

Writing the Statement

Training to Other Audiences

Conclusions

Appendix 14.A: Sexual Offence Case Training Scenarios

Appendix 14.B: Templates for Use in Statement Writing Exercises

Expert Witness Declaration Form

Forensic Examination Record

Witness Statement

References

15 The Use of High-Fidelity Simulations in Emergency Management Training

The Need for High Fidelity

Scenario Design

Health and Safety Considerations

Initial Response

Site Management

Evidence Collection

Media Management

Team Management

Witnesses and Interviewing

Coaching Techniques

Analysis and Reporting

Summary

Reference

16 Police Training in the Twenty-first Century

Introduction

Training of Future Police Detectives

Evaluation of Police Performance

Avoiding Miscarriages of Justice

Maintaining and Developing the Role of the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO)

Expert Witnesses

The Compartmentalisation of Investigative Skills

Forensic Provision

Silverman Report on the Closure of the Forensic Science Service

Ethical Issues

High Volume Crime

New Investigative Challenges

Recommendations

Conclusions

Glossary

References

17 The Design and Implementation of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) in Forensic Science Assessment

Introduction to Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

The Benefits and Limitations of MCQ Use in Forensic Science Assessment

Designing MCQs for Forensic Science

Integrating MCQs into Forensic Science Education and Assessment

Marking Methods for MCQ Assessments

Conclusions

References

18 The Future of Forensic Science Education

Introduction

The Teaching Exercise Framework and the Research Exercise Framework

Accreditation of Forensic Science Providers

Accreditation of Academic Forensic Courses

Accreditation of Forensic Science Practitioners

Employers in the Next Decade

The Future of Forensic Science Education and Practitioner Training

Conclusions

References

Further Reading

Index

Wiley End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 1

Table 1.1

Chapter 8

Table 8.1

Table 8.2

Table 8.3

Chapter 9

Table 9.1

Table 9.2

Table 9.3

Chapter 10

Table 10.1

Chapter 16

Table 16.1

Chapter 17

Table 17.1

Table 17.2

Table 17.3

Pages

iv

v

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

57

58

59

60

62

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

119

120

121

122

126

127

128

129

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

163

164

165

166

167

168

170

171

172

173

174

175

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

207

208

209

210

211

212

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

228

229

230

231

232

233

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

List of Contributors

Luke BracegirdleSchool of Physical Sciences and Geography Keele University, Keele Staffordshire, UK

Graham BraithwaiteCranfield University Shrivenham Swindon, UK

Sue CarneyEthos Forensics Manchester, UK and University of Central Lancashire, UK

John P. CassellaStaffordshire University Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science Faculty of Computing Engineering and Science Science Centre Stoke on Trent, UK

Peter CrossUniversity of Central Lancashire Preston, UK

Claire GwinnettStaffordshire University Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science Faculty of Computing Engineering and Science Science Centre Stoke on Trent, UK

Christopher HargreavesCranfield University College Road, Cranfield Bedfordshire, UK

Karl HarrisonCranfield University Cranfield Forensic Institute College Road, Cranfield Bedfordshire, UK

Benjamin J. JonesAbertay University Dundee, UK

Janice KennedyUniversity of West Scotland School of Science and Sport Hamilton Campus Hamilton, UK

Peter D. MaskellAbertay University School of Science Engineering and Technology Dundee, UK

Colleen MorganUniversity of York Centre for Digital Heritage Research King's Manor York, UK

Anna-Maria MullerSwindon Wiltshire UK

Jackie A. PotterSchool of Physical Sciences and Geography Keele University, Keele Staffordshire, UK

Richard D. PriceFaculty of Computing Engineering and Science University of South Wales, UK

Jamie K. PringleSchool of Physical Sciences and Geography Keele University, Keele Staffordshire, UK

David Rogers1Staffordshire University Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science Faculty of Computing Engineering and Science Science Centre Stoke on Trent, UK

Mark RoycroftUniversity of East London University Way London, UK

Luke TaylorUniversity of Kent Canterbury, UK

Kris ThomsonAnatomage San Jose California, USA

Anna WilliamsUniversity of Huddersfield School of Applied Sciences, Queensgate Huddersfield, UK

Note

1

David is deceased.

Foreword

I am particularly pleased to write the Foreword to this book, because it addresses the crux of the whole scientific investigative process. The effectiveness of that process is completely dependent on education and knowledge, simply because it's a truism that ‘you do not know what you do not know.’ So if you have no idea that pond water contains diatoms you would never see the significance of their absence in a drowning victim. If you do not know that the diatom population changes from month to month, you would never see the possibility of determining how many months ago a person drowned in a river. Nor would you be able to produce the analytical diatom results in the first place unless you knew how to retrieve and analyse the samples.

This book is a comprehensive and authoritative treasure trove of how to teach both principles and practice.

Of course one change in forensic science education over the last 15 years has been the greatly heightened profile of the subject due to the popularity of TV programmes such as CSI – which in turn has led to an almost exponential increase in the number of courses and students. I have no reservations about saying this is a very good thing–indeed it raises the public understanding of science and has the major advantage of increasing the number of undergraduates studying science. It also provides a feed of excellent students into forensic science research in academia, a role which they have taken over from the Forensic Science Service (FSS). Of course, there are hardly any jobs available as court going forensic scientists, but this is not a new problem–it was exactly the same when I started in the early 1970s. And in fact this is not a problem at all, as it turns out that forensic science graduates possess the very attributes sought by employers of all types–logic and assessment, using a scientific method, communication skills and of course scientific skills.

At school, I always wanted to be Sherlock Holmes, although my initial interest simply lay in the delight of solving logical puzzles. Of course, Sherlock Holmes had the serious advantage that he knew the solution in advance, so that the logic simply involved assembling the building blocks of an already known solution; however that advantage was not immediately apparent to a fascinated ten-year-old.

Towards the end of a long career in forensic science I eventually became a forensic investigator as head of physical evidence at National Crime Faculty (NCF), and my overall aim was still very Sherlock Holmes like, but the process was indeed completely opposite. My job was to think of all the possible explanations for the facts, thus creating multiple hypotheses, which often confused matters further as far as the investigators went. By then analysing the micro-sequence of events, that is the actions and interactions between the offender and victim and environment that must have taken place, we could use physical evidence to prove or disprove that particular hypothesis: pretty well back to Sherlock Holmes and his ‘when you have eliminated the impossible etc., etc.’

At Crime Faculty my primary role was to review undetected and cold case murders and rape series. The initial casework experience was horrific, a word I use advisedly. Crucial observations and inferences that would have detected crimes simply (and cheaply!) were being overlooked. It quickly became apparent that the main problem in using forensic science effectively in the United Kingdom was simply a lack of shared knowledge. The scientists thought in terms of evidence and simply did not appreciate the value of intelligence to investigations–the potential impact of their observations and results over the dozens of investigative lines of enquiry. Equally the police could define their problems but had insufficient knowledge to see which of the myriad techniques available would be most appropriate. The situation was compounded because forensic science is inherently context dependant–often investigators would demand inappropriate tests simply because they had worked previously, under different circumstances.

Progress was made–NCF and the FSS introduced specialist advisors, generalist scientists attached to the investigative team, a role designed to enhance the thinking process in investigations. And the UK Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) Report on Forensic Science (2004) stated unequivocally that the real benefit of forensic science lay in the provision of intelligence during the investigative phase, not hard evidence for use in court.

That overarching view of techniques and processes is particularly necessary because as new scientific instrumentation expanded throughout the 1970s and 1980s, forensic scientists themselves became more and more specialised. By the 1990s it became increasingly unreasonable to expect the police to second guess all the scientific solutions, and thus counterproductive for investigators to choose items to send to the laboratory to answer specific questions, as they traditionally had. The questions were still fine but the laboratory increasingly had more and more and better and better ways of answering them–or answering completely different, and more useful questions, which were completely unknown to individual detectives.

The Chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (now National Police Chiefs Council) Homicide once described my NCF role as ‘asking stupid questions.’ He meant (I hope!) asking questions that had not occurred to the specialist scientists or investigators. However, forensic science (and forensic intelligence) is not really about DNA or other clever test results but about the significance of those analytical results and observations in any particular context. So forensic science educators need to teach scientific techniques, process and logical thought and apply these skills across a wide range of instrumental techniques and crime types. A glance down the chapter list will demonstrate that this aim has been admirably fulfilled.

Less easy to define and engender are attributes such as a questioning approach and especially the need to encourage a ‘Bayesian thinking’ mind-set, which will lead students to think automatically ‘what other possible explanation can there be for that result.’ Undergraduate courses will provide a bedrock of factual information as well, but students really need to link that questioning mind-set to a wide breadth of factual knowledge of their own. As an example, scientists all know that you just cannot ignite petrol with a cigarette end, but the public who watch films and TV don't. This means the criminals don't either, and giving an impossible explanation for criminal events is often quite a good clue!

If only this book had been available when I was giving evidence in Court! Because whilst it is designed as a resource for educators and trainers, it provides a wealth of information that should also underpin our discussions with lay audiences, whether in Court or when trying to convince a Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) to authorise tests s/he believes irrelevant. Or to explain anything remotely scientific to members of the legal profession…

In summary, it is impossible to provide effective forensic science without a good knowledge of the known context, and an excellent and broad education as to the methods and processes available to clarify that context and to assess significance. That educative resource is exactly what is provided by this book, and I commend it to you unreservedly.

Dave Barclay

Fellow of the Forensic Science Society

Honorary/Emeritus Professor

November 2016

Acknowledgements

The Editors would like to thank Anna-Maria Muller for all her hard work and dedication at the beginning of the journey towards completion of this book.

We would also like to express our thanks to all the contributors whose expertise, experience and diligence has made this book possible, and to the students who have inspired us to produce this text. We hope that the knowledge, experience and enthusiasm accumulated in these pages will benefit forensic science lecturers and trainers and in turn, generations of future students and forensic scientists.

Anna Williams would like to thank her husband Graeme for his unwavering support.

John P. Cassella would like to thank those staff and students who have inspired him to be a better teacher.

Peter D. Maskell would like to thank his family Dawn, Imogen and Caitlyn for keeping him sane in the exile years.

1Forensic Science Education – The Past and the Present In and Out of the Classroom

John P. Cassella,1 Peter D. Maskell,2 and Anna Williams3

1Staffordshire University, Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science, Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science, Science Centre, Stoke on Trent, UK

2Abertay University, School of Science, Engineering and Technology, Dundee, UK

3University of Huddersfield, School of Applied Sciences, Queensgate, Huddersfield, UK

Introduction

This chapter aims to reflect upon and to consider the ‘where are we now’ aspect of forensic science education and training. Despite the rhythms and reflective cycle that academia requires, it is surprising how little time the on-the-ground academics and practitioners involved in education and training get to truly reflect upon the curriculum and assessment of what they deliver. Of course what is specifically taught depends upon many variables; the interests, skills and experiences of those academics delivering the material coupled with the requirement of the industry to teach it. Whilst such criteria are of importance to say ‘art’ colleagues in their curriculum design, they are not as crucial as they are to a subject such as forensic science. This offers limited latitude for what is taught and requires industry professionals and accreditation boards to drive the expectations of the curricula to a greater degree. What is apparent over the coming pages is the change and the rate of change that has taken place in the forensic science profession at all levels, technical, practical and academic and its use within the Courtroom is now greater than ever, demanding higher and higher levels of skill, competence and understanding of what is useful in a police investigation and criminal trial.

Forensic science is a ‘critical and integral part’ of any judicial system in the 21st Century because forensic science is one of the primary means through which ‘democratic governments fulfill one of the most fundamental obligations to their citizens: public safety insurance in a just manner’.

Houck, 2006

Well over a decade ago, in 2000, in the United Kingdom (UK), the educational landscape for forensic science was very different to today's current situation.

The changes that have occurred in the past decade not only in the forensic science area but also within policing (Neuroyd, 2011) are the greatest since either forensic science or indeed policing came into being. A number of key national and international events have occurred and documents have been published that have aimed to examine the status quo and to offer direction for future developments within forensic science and hence its delivery and education. Some of these early key events and the documentation resulting from them include:

The report by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee – Forensic Science on Trial, published in 2005.

The UK SEMTA Report (Science, Engineering, Manufacturing Technologies Alliance (SEMTA) Sector Skills Council, Forensic Science: Implications for Higher Education 2004, UK) of 2004 on the forensic science implications for Higher Education institutions.

The UK Skills for Justice Report in 2009 for the Forensic Science Occupational Committee in 2009 into the provision of forensic science degree programmes in UK Higher Education institutions (HEIs).

The National Academy of Sciences (USA) report (2009) into strengthening forensic science in the United States.

The publication of the Silverman report on UK Forensic Science Research published in 2011.

The ‘paradigm shift for UK Forensic Science’ (Royal Society Meeting) in 2015 … and the list could go on.

As a result of the field's prominence and popularity (Mennell, 2006), the number of education providers offering forensic science courses and the number of students enrolling in these courses increased exponentially (Engber, 2005; NIFS, 2006) but the subjective observation is that there is now a downward trend in recruitment in forensic science courses in favour of policing based education.

The expansion in forensic science education worldwide driven by university consumer forces and popular demand, in addition to the inconsistency and lack of clarity in the huge range of forensic science courses on offer, have led to inconsistencies in skills and competencies acquired by the graduates seeking employment in the field. Whilst this has clearly been addressed through accreditation by the laudable attempts of learned societies in their host countries (such as the UK Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences) to harmonise the content of delivery, this has worked within countries to some extent, but less so across countries, which reflects the relationship of forensic science with the law and the wider Criminal Justice System within that particular country.

In 2004 that may have been the case, but the situation is now somewhat improved. The question concerning the variety and the value of the many publications and reports on this topic into forensic science provision and education and the legacies and the recommendations that they have offered will be considered further within this chapter and indeed as a paradigm throughout this book. There is, however, much still to be done as forensic science education enters the second decade in the UK HEIs. As Samarji (2012) observed, forensic science academic programmes are still characterised by a great deal of randomness and uncertainty.

Burnett et al. (2001) had argued that little research has been undertaken and published on forensic science education; it is reasonable to surmise that this issue of a paucity of literature at the turn of the twenty-first century has long since been redressed with a myriad of documents, investigations and recommendations at national and international level into all levels and aspects of forensic science. Four years later, Lewis et al. (2005) concluded that the random expansion in forensic science education worldwide, in addition to an inconsistency and lack of clarity in the wide range of forensic science courses on offer, led to variations in the skills and the competencies acquired by trainees and graduates seeking employment in the forensic field. Moreover, forensic science education departments still lack formal arrangements with practitioners and employers to discuss course content, delivery and assessment. Currently in the HEI sector, at best there is a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ but more often there is a reliance upon the good will of management level staff from both the academic and practitioner organisations involved. Instead ‘what exists is a series of ad hoc arrangements’ (with a couple of notable exceptions), which occur on an individual basis between employers or individuals and UK universities through which ‘employers liaise with universities about particular courses’ (SEMTA, 2004) and how they should or could develop their courses.

Forensic science suffers a non-consensus within the academic community on whether it is a stand-alone and distinct applied field of knowledge, an associate field of study, or merely a technical derivative of existing arenas. Moreover, some scholars and practitioners argue in the public domain in the extreme as to whether or not forensic science education is a necessity at all within Higher Education.

Despite this dialogue, criticisms by potential employers (Lewis et al., 2005) abound more than a decade after the first courses were introduced. Forensic science (education) departments still lack formal arrangement or requirements with employers and national level organisations, for example, the College of Policing (CoP), Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (CSFS) and Skills for Justice (SfJ), offering endorsement programmes to discuss course content in a meaningful fashion and certainly not at a national, European-wide or international level.

These inconsistencies have resulted, particularly in forensic science education courses because of the lack of dialogue between the various contexts, cultures and mind-set, in a field of shifting but unconfirmed reigning paradigms. This lack of dialogue, compounded by the lack of Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) guidance (until 2012), had resulted in a set of competencies determined to a large degree by the skill set of the academics from the university at the time that the course was first designed. This has been offset in part by up-skilling of HEI academics in the realisation, from advice given by forensic practitioners from industry when attending university forensic science course ‘validation events,’ that the course must be more than `forensic' in name. Whilst this has been achieved to varying levels across the HEI sector, most, if not all institutions involved, are guilty (in part) of not fully entering into dialogue with legal or policing colleagues. The closure of the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS) in 2012 had one positive effect upon HEIs as an industry, in that it offered a willing pool of highly qualified individuals who could join the academic teams. Previously, such individuals had only entered this pool at retirement on a visiting lecturer basis.

Despite the prominence and high stature that forensic science has gained within the general public consciousness and the consequent expansion it has achieved within Higher Education institutions, forensic science ‘has not enjoyed a similar rise in stature within the academic community’ (Jonakait, 1991). Garrison (1991) asserted that forensic science identity is complex because it is the ‘product of an uneasy and unholy mating of science, the objective seeker of truth and knowledge, and forensics, the argumentative persuader of courtroom advocacy’; competency compounded by its association with the Police Service in the UK undergoing one of the most radical changes in over 100 years (Neyroud, 2011).

Forensic science remains a relatively new and developing field in terms of its education, practice and stature. It is the proverbial Cinderella to chemistry, physics and biology and is likely to be so for the foreseeable future, until its importance in both an educational and employment context are fully recognised and appreciated. The reasons for this are still being debated, however, the relative youthfulness of such educational courses may in part explain the attitudes of employers to such courses when compared with the much more established sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology.

Therefore, complexity and uncertainty issues are experienced at the epistemological level of forensic science, in the nature of the actual practice and within a wide grasp of images, profiles, impressions, expectations and perceptions that attempt to shape the identity of this field.

In the eyes of the media, UK educational establishments that were given university status in 1992 (and beyond) are criticised as being only devoted to responding to either government's wishes or fulfilling businesses' obsession with income, whilst giving up their historic fundamental role as a ‘civilising force’ and a source of moral development (Cullingford and Blewitt, 2004). Forensic science education has sometimes been used by universities for business reasons, where the word ‘forensic’ is used as a popular term to attract enrolments and polish the perceived less attractive conventional subjects, such as chemistry and physics, which are subject to closure (SEMTA, 2004).

Despite the levelling-off (in fact a clear decline) of the number of HEIs validating forensic science based courses, the initial rapid growth in forensic science education over the last decade continues to raise concerns about the quality of many of the forensic science programmes offered (Daéid and Roux, 2010; Quarino and Brettell, 2009; Mennell, 2006). This rapid growth is argued to be the cause of the inconsistencies and the lack of clarity reflected in the huge range of forensic science courses on offer (Lewis et al., 2005). This inconsistency in education has resulted in the lack of agreement on the ‘appropriate’ competencies acquired by forensic science graduates, which have led to further criticisms from potential employers (Lewis et al., 2005; Hanson and Overton, 2010). The CSFS accreditation process has done much to level the playing field in terms of quality and content but as this is still not a requirement for course delivery it has not been taken up by all HEI providers.

Reviews have been conducted to study the current status of this education and establish some recommendations for the future (Daéid and Roux, 2010). With this in mind, the following studies are pertinent to consider.

The Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing in the UK conducted a study on forensic science (2004) which recommended that: (1) forensic science degree content be monitored for quality assurance and be set-up in close cooperation with the forensic industry; (2) professional technical/laboratory skills training programmes should be established; (3) pure science disciplines (e.g. chemistry) in Higher Education should receive more government funding (SEMTA, 2004). This study was supplemented by a study in 2009 presented in a ‘Skills for Justice’ report in response to the on going debate and concerns of the UK Government about the employability and postgraduate ‘value’ of many of the forensic science courses offered within the UK (Daéid and Roux, 2010). The Skills for Justice's report observed that a number of the issues raised years previously in SEMTA's 2004 report remain a concern over a decade later, including the failure of large numbers of forensic science graduates to secure employment in the forensic sector. At the time of the SEMTA report in 2004, the forensic landscape was very different for both practitioner and educators, and it was indeed very different for students within a university environment; the questions remain as to the success or not of the levels of employment of forensic science graduates.

The USA National Institute for Forensic Science (NIFS) criticised the United States educational establishments in 2006, in that forensic content was present sometimes ‘by name only’ in their US curricula, in order to add or associate the adjective ‘forensic’ with the title of the offered courses; hence, the courses became more attractive and enrolled more students.

We now have the UK Forensic Science Regulators' role in Quality Assurance (Codes of Practice and Conduct) (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/118949/codes-practice-conduct.pdf) within the industry and their role in related areas in practice that is well entrenched within the Home Office and Criminal Justice structures. The closure of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners and the Skills for Justice, Skillsmark process, has since been initiated. The CSFS `Education and Industry Liaison Forum' was formed to facilitate forensic practitioners engagement in a more structured manner with education and research in HEIs.

This development represents a landmark shift in the way that practitioners and HEIs engage – this is something that has taken a decade to bring to fruition and demonstrates the significant changes in the attitudes of stakeholders, practitioners and drawbridge keepers that has made this possible with HEIs.

The R v T, where in October 2010, the English Court of Appeal overturned a murder conviction on the basis of, as it saw it, severe flaws in the generation and presentation of the prosecution's forensic shoe-print evidence (see Hamer, 2012) report and the closure of the Forensic Science Service in the UK in 2012, was a stern wake-up call to the whole forensic industry, not just in the United Kingdom but indeed globally. Equally, the United States National Academy of Sciences (the national research council of the national academies), report make very clear statements about directions for moving forward for their forensic science community and sent a Tsunami warning to the United Kingdom in terms of policy and practice in 2011, and yet the FSS closure went ahead with little or no published plan of what would replace the void it left behind.

Hannis and Welsh (2009) published the ‘Skills for Justice – Fit for Purpose – Research into the provision of forensic science degree programmes in UK HEIs’ and reported that `a number of areas of forensic education needed improving to be truly fit for purpose.'

In 2006 the United Kingdom Forensic Science Education Group (UKSFEG) was established as a forum in part to provide careers information and more general career advice to potential and current forensic science students. It comprised a number of highly influential and high-ranking individuals and groups including: the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Home Office Forensic Science & Pathology Unit, Forensic Science Service, Scottish Forensic Science Service, Northern Ireland Forensic Service, Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC) Forensics, Centrex NTC, Metropolitan Police Service, Strathclyde Police, Derbyshire Police, Cleveland Police, the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, UK Higher Education Academy and a number of UK universities in which forensic science degrees were delivered. Part of its remit was to encourage links with forensic science employers and academia. The group's aim is to continue to promote recognisable and relevant degrees in `forensic practice.'

Its wider remit has been to establish forensic science employer Higher Education (HE) requirements and priorities for new and existing staff by agreeing a framework for forensic science users and providers to work collaboratively with HE to influence the design, content and delivery of courses, to ensure graduates are well equipped to meet the needs of the forensic science community. For a time, UKSFEG assisted in influencing forensic science degree courses and working with forensic science users and providers to identify key priority areas for the future, such as Crime Scene Science and Digital Forensics. Through this, it facilitated providers with a pool of high quality graduates to recruit from; it produces undergraduates and postgraduates with realistic career expectations and opportunities and a framework of Higher Education professional development activities for forensic practitioners. In achieving these aims, the group complemented the work of existing organisations such as the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, Higher Education Academy and the Association of Chief Police Officers ‘Forensic Science Sector Training Strategy Group.’

At a meeting of UKSFEG in 2011, a representative of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) gave an overview of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) remit regarding research in forensic science into the next decade. Building on the publication of the ‘Science and Innovation Strategy for Policing’ document, published in 2011 (https://connect.innovateuk.org/documents/3144739/3824722/Live-time+Forensics+brochure(draftv6LR).pdf/a65350a2-683d-4476-9a1e-99c1883ae33e), this presentation outlined the ACPO Forensic Strategy as a framework for national research, with the more immediate timescale of 2011–2015. Arising from this framework, three work streams were to be commissioned to provide an initial focus for the needs of the Police with respect to developments in forensic science. These work streams were:

Improving the custody process with respect to forensic evidence and database information.

Digitising crime scenes, both with respect to recording the crime scene and using on-site tests.

Personal identification.

What became clear was the discordant understanding between the policing and HEI forensic aims and objectives for research into the next decade. The 2012 ACPO document `Harnessing Science Innovation for Forensic Investigation in Policing' (https:// connect.innovateuk.org/documents/3144739/3824722/Live-time+Forensics+brochure (draftv6LR).pdf/a65350a2-683d-4476-9a1e-99c1883ae33e) has offered the opportunity for dialogue and development of research plans between HEIs and organisations such as the UK Home Office ‘Centre for Applied Science and Technology.’

In 2011 the ‘Lowering the Drawbridges’ report (McCartney et al., 2011) into the interrelationship of education between the legal and scientific communities demonstrated the desperate need for pedagogic harmonisation for those entering into a criminal justice framework in education as students or in practice as graduates. The imperative is for law educators and science educators to ‘lower their drawbridges’ and seek mutually beneficial solutions to common educational problems, not only to reap benefits for students, but also to contribute towards developing the legal/forensic science professions of the future, and ultimately, assist the Criminal Justice System in realising its ideals and objectives.

In part, this issue is confirmed by an earlier report by Samarji (2012), who suggested that forensic science education is arbitrarily organised, as the forensic science courses considered in his study possessed no clear pattern(s) of:

The knowledge fields that should be incorporated (e.g. chemistry, biology, mathematics, physics, law and/or forensic subjects).

The place and extent of practice, the non-consensus on the academic level at which forensic science education should start (non-award, undergraduate and/or postgraduate).

In the United States, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) website revealed over 155 undergraduate forensic science programmes, nearly 70% of which lead to bachelor's degrees in forensic science or in forensic science associated with other disciplines such as chemistry, biology, criminal justice, anthropology and/or psychology (AAFS, https://www.aafs.org/).

The non-award programmes (∼30%) distribute between associate degrees, certificate programmes and training programmes mainly in forensic DNA profiling. In the United Kingdom, forensic science education is no less popular. The number of students studying forensic science degrees increased from 2191 in 2002–2003 to 5664 in 2007–2008 (Skills for Justice, 2009).

At one point in time there were over 500 listed combinations of undergraduate courses with ‘forensic’ in the title being offered by over 70 British universities (Daéid and Roux, 2010).

The picture that emerges from what has been described from forensic science and its education is a long way from ‘rosy.’ The changing climate of the introduction of student fees, the increased pressure upon academic staff with the industrialisation of their roles and the burdens of ever increasing administrative responsibilities being placed upon them do nothing to foster a climate of enthusiastic experimentation and innovation to change the status quo in the arena of forensic Higher Education in the United Kingdom.

The bleakness of the forensic and general sciences job market globally, the expectations of students, increasing student numbers and increasing pressure upon the academic community generally, have led to a rethink of who, what, why, when and how we do our jobs as educationalists.

A quote from Woods (2010), a former CEO of Science for Justice, demonstrates the recognition of the requirement for HEI–practitioner partnerships:

…lead the way globally in the delivery of higher education in forensic science… bringing together the universities and forensic science employers to work in partnership.

Woods, 2010

In June 2011, Professor Bernard Silverman (Silverman, 2011) the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Home Office reported that:

There are several factors, in addition to the managed closure of a major provider (the FSS), which make it timely to carry out this review. These include the distributed nature of forensic science provision, the rapid pace of scientific and technological advances in various areas, and the changing nature of public sector research funding and accountability.

Overall the research landscape [in forensic science research] that has developed is varied and in some ways fragmented, and improvement in the degree of linkage and communication would drive forward innovation most effectively.

Silverman, 2011

Whereas in the past academia concerned themselves mainly with science and the law, there are now courses inculcating policing and policing science into the equation.

This strengthens, not dilutes, what we have to teach, but we now have to be mindful of the changing landscape of policing and of intelligence and evidence gathering. The changing manpower structures as outlined in the Neuroyd report (2011) require a more efficient and transparent police service at a much cheaper cost, and this adds a new layer to what academics have to deliver on many of the HEI courses, for example, business protocols, budgetary awareness, working with constraints, systematic and strategic thinking.

There has, to date, been no single place in which all of these changes have been recorded, dialogued or even vignetted, so that those new to the profession, interested in the subject, or just plain ‘nosey’ about CSI-UK, can come and drink from the huge well of knowledge that has been created since forensic science undergraduate degrees exploded on the educational landscape in the mid-1990s. Now over two decades on, it is time for a retrospective and a prospective dialogue to map-out and to create a ‘road map’ of the way forward for the next decade.

It is also very important to be able to educate and prepare teachers and instructors to deal with teaching in an area such as this, requiring non-traditional methods. Some excellent classroom instructors and teachers struggle adjusting to the use of computer-based teaching, virtual formats and social networking tools, because the dynamics between the instructor and the student are very different and require more forethought and create different challenges than traditional teaching methods. All of these changes have taken place in the face of social changes in learning style and structure impacted upon by technology. ‘Clicker technology’ and Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Skype, Facebook, tablet technology and indeed perniciously invasive mobile phone technology have changed the way students engage with each other and with academics in their teaching and learning strategies. We will look to the best aspects of these to determine how we can more fully engage with students to facilitate their autonomous, deep and self-directed learning without damaging the pedagogic experience to produce forensic scientists with a continuing drive to learn and develop once in forensic practice.

Innovative teaching methods are required to deal with increased numbers of students, diverse student populations and the demand for value for money, as well as increased competition with other HEI educational providers. In order to understand and therefore to fully appreciate the current status of forensic science in the United Kingdom, the recent history of forensic science in its educational context should be considered. The ‘science’ behind forensic science cannot simply be discussed in isolation but must be done cognisant of government policy, policing requirements and initiatives and the politics and business practices that pervade every aspect of the science that is designed to assist the pursuit of justice into the twenty-first century.

Neumann observed that when he began his undergraduate degree in Switzerland, no one wanted to work in forensic science and only a small number of training programmes existed worldwide (Neumann, 2011). By the early 1990s there was a global proliferation of courses ‘churning-out’ forensic scientists. This visibility was clearly fuelled by forensic science-based television dramas, which to date have increased and appear likely to do so for the foreseeable future.

Over the past two decades, forensic science has begun to emerge as a field of study in which academia worldwide has literally hundreds of universities offering forensic science programmes (Quarino and Brettell, 2009; NIFS, 2006).

Such a need urged the expansion of these laboratory services, which in turn created new forensic science positions to be filled by individuals with the essential skills and science education, specifically in the areas of chemistry, biology and biochemistry (Quarino and Brettell, 2009).

According to Smallwood (2002) the popularity of forensic science is now such that ‘every third person on the planet has expressed an interest in becoming a forensic scientist.’

However, as indicated by Robertson (2012), media representations are argued to have created an influence of unrealistic perceptions of forensic science in the public in relation to what a forensic practitioner can in reality do and the timeframe it takes to obtain results and answers. As a senior forensic colleague of mine regularly recounts in lectures ‘on the television, crimes are solved in 60 minutes including commercial breaks – in my job it can take years!’ (Dr Roger Summers, retired UK head of forensic services Derbyshire Police, personal communication).

Forensic science programmes were often housed within a university chemistry department and treated educationally as a chemistry derivative (Smallwood, 2002) although it could include other sciences and applications that can be invited to solve cases pertaining to law (Inman and Rudin, 1997). Well over a decade later the situation remains ostensibly the same, particularly in the United Kingdom, but not exclusively; there have been no new undergraduate (or postgraduate) forensic science departments created in either the post-1992 universities (once known as polytechnics) or indeed in any of the more traditional and long-established (red-brick) universities. In fact departments of Forensic Medicine are closing in the UK, with London being the only capital city in the world without a university department of Forensic Medicine. There may be many reasons for this, but clearly one of them has to be the cost of setting up the correct educational environment. The laboratories and equipment, although expensive, are a small cost in comparison with employing staff with experience and credibility. Those who are the UK leaders in forensic science educational provision have achieved this staff critical mass over a decade or more.

Since the 1990s, the number of Higher Education providers that offer forensic science courses/programmes have steadily increased in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and many other countries (Mennell, 2006; NIFS, 2006). A second example is Australia, where there are currently around 23 forensic science programmes covering various specialisations and academic levels (NIFS, 2006). A third example is the forensic programme at West Virginia University in the United States, where the programme grew from four students in year 1997 to more than 500 students in 2006 (Houck, 2006).

One line of current thinking is that the large number of forensic science programmes are randomly organised, where the curricula of these courses are unstructured, content is delivered in isolation from industry and graduates are not sought after by forensic science agencies. There a number of concerns associated with this increase in demand for student places on forensic-based courses. The first is that there are no forensic science jobs for them to go into as graduates, the second is that the content of the degree courses does not fit with the requirements of the job they would enter as a forensic scientist. However, there is a third and more worrying concern being expressed by a number of interested parties, and that is one of maintaining the highest possible standards in the industry.

There is also the tension created by what industry expects a graduate to have in terms of skills for immediate employability and the limitations created by a curriculum in terms of depth and breadth, and also one of content. One of the concerns that employers have voiced relates to the variations in forensic content from one university to another.

Surely a degree is a starting point for further study in the job, and as a newly graduated practitioner, years of study and research lie ahead in order to fully qualify for the title of ‘forensic scientist.’ There appears to be a blindness within the industry with the newly graduated students being labelled as ‘not fit for purpose.’ This observation has been unfairly levied; they are indeed fit for further training and for personal development, as indeed the well seasoned forensic practitioners should be if they are self-reflective and are themselves to remain competent in a forensic science arena. In order to improve the employability of forensic science graduates the CSFS introduced the pre-employment assessment of competence (PEAC) in 2015. The PEAC award demonstrates the evidence of a candidate's knowledge, skills, reasoning and problem-solving abilities through industry approved assessment (https://www.csofs.org/PEAC).

Universities have been criticised for seizing upon the growing interest of forensic science as a money-making opportunity; this is a bold statement with suggestions of a somewhat unprofessional attitude. However, as with any other ‘business’ driven venture (despite universities holding ‘charitable’ status), all UK universities have to survive in a financially constrained environment and it would be naïve, if not negligent to have not seized upon the market opportunity to develop forensic science courses in UK HEIs. That is not to suggest that a multitude of forensic-based courses were simply thrown together. This would be frankly impossible due to the internal and external quality assurance mechanisms that monitor and regularly check the quality of courses and the elements (modules) within those courses in HEIs. Any new programme of study goes through a rigorous process of documentation and validation meetings involving both internal and external panel members – usually from the industry at which the proposed course is aimed.

All documentation is available for scrutiny and auditing. Once the course is running, the programme is then monitored annually by external examiners who are drawn from similar courses or indeed from industry in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the criticisms directed at the quality of educational delivery are ill founded and erroneous. The issue that follows this is one of inappropriate content for the workplace. In 2004, the SEMTA report evidenced concerns that there were only ad hoc