The scientific method is a technique used by scientists to interpret and understand various phenomena in the world. In forensic science, the technique is used to observe and analyze crime scenes to find any links that could solve an existing forensic problem (Zapf & Dror, 2017). There are four distinct steps used by forensic scientists in the determination and analysis of issues. Generally, the method emphasizes reducing any prejudices or biases that could affect the assessment of hypotheses and theories.
The first step involves observation and description of phenomena. In this first step, forensic investigators must examine the phenomenon they are studying and describe it according to what they can derive from their observations. Examiners must observe the situation or incidence under investigation keenly to derive any data before proceeding to the next step. Moreover, good observation skills are required, as examiners must identify any details that could link the phenomenon being investigated (Haig, 2018). Poor observation of the incidence results in missing pieces, which could be crucial in formulating a hypothesis or establishing the cause of the incidence. For instance, in a crime scene where examiners investigate ballistics, the main focus would be identifying any attributes that can be used as evidence. The crime environment would be scanned for bullets or blood, helping the investigators to link the murder to a shooting. In this case, if the focus on investigation is a body of a slain victim, the examiners must check the entry and exit points of the bullets. During the case, the defense team may use the entry point of the bullet and the standing zone of the defendant to refute claims that they have been involved in the shooting of the deceased. In this case, the forensic investigator's role is to identify and analyze all details for ease of response and progression of analysis.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Description in this step involves detailing all the elements covered through observation. In this step, investigators must describe the observed elements through writings by making inferences on what they could imply in the investigation. The description section will help identify the most suitable hypothesis that can be developed for a successful investigation process to be completed (Haig, 2018). For instance, in a ballistic examination, investigators must describe the intensity of the wounds or the entry angle after observing the bullet entry points, which will help in further decision-making for hypothesis development in the latter stage.
The second stage requires forensic investigators to formulate a hypothesis or hypotheses depending on the information collected and described in the previous step. This stage involves the design of questions or theories that can be used in understanding the incidence. In a ballistic investigation, the investigators analyze the observed attributes to describe the gun that could have been used (Haig, 2018). Therefore, the forensic investigator must hypothesize to determine the type of gun used to execute the crime. For instance, depending on the range of the shot or the intensity of the gunshot wound described in the previous section, the investigators can identify the type of gun used by the perpetrators. In this case, processes like firearm examination or tool mark can be conducted to ascertain the theory or hypothesis developed for linking the crime to a specific point. Ammunition examination and determination of firearm evidence would help the investigation process by identifying the possible cues supporting the stated hypothesis. Through the developed hypothesis, investigators can identify key areas to study, including the type of ammunition, shooting range, and shooting angle, to tie the perpetrator to the crime. With examinations like trajectory paths of the body, entry parameters like strength can determine the bullet route, thus creating a good link between a defendant and the available evidence.
The stated hypothesis must show the possibilities of a relationship between examination variables. For instance, under the ballistics case, the hypothesis must link the defendant with the crime. The main focus will be to prove that the defendant had a specific gun used in committing the crime (Au, 2018). Another hypothesis would also aim at linking the defendant's presence at the crime scene. The investigators would hypothesize that the perpetrator owned a gun at the scene during the shooting. The stated hypothesis must also be testable or provable, implying that elements can be examined to ascertain its claim. In this case, if the hypothesis was that the defendant was present at the crime scene, the forensic investigators must find evidence that supports or refutes the hypothesis. The idea must also enable investigators to identify its components easily and execute the necessary analyses to prove or deny it.
The next step involves the use of the stated hypothesis in the prediction of the phenomenon's existence. In this stage, quantitative analysis is used in predicting new inferences and observations regarding the phenomenon under investigation. Forensic investigators must explain what can be observed or understood through the hypothesis (Au, 2018). The main criteria in this stage are "cause and effect", whereby the relationships between the different pieces of evidence are used to explain how they could have contributed to the emergence of the hypothesis holding. However, this stage does not support generalizations, as it is conducted under the criterion of observable features. For instance, the investigators could argue that if the defendant was present at the crime scene, then they were more likely to be the perpetrators, as stated under the hypothesis. Another cause-and-effect inference could be that possessing a particular gun and presence at the crime scene is the main reason for tying an individual to the crime.
In this stage, the formulated hypothesis is proven and used to predict the phenomenon's existence. In the case of the ballistic investigation, after all the examination of all the variables within the hypothesis, a conclusion could be made on whether the defendant was involved in the murder (Au, 2018). For instance, after proving that the perpetrator was present at the crime scene, investigators can conclude that he was involved in the murder. However, establishing a hypothesis does not imply that the defendant is guilty; hence further investigation must be conducted to ascertain the claim.
The final step involves experimental tests through the use of independent parameters. In this step, investigators focus on proving if test results confirm their hypotheses. After the execution of the experiment, the results are compared with the hypothesis, and the right reflections are made. However, a controlled experiment must be conducted in this stage through independent parameters and investigators (Au, 2018). Additionally, the control experiment must be executed on several subjects for high reliability to be achieved. By executing multiple test studies, forensic investigators can determine if the results are compatible or a coincidence.
Conclusively, the scientific method is highly applicable in forensic science as it enables the examination and analysis of crime scenes, incidences, and situations for high-accuracy inferences. The four-step process helps forensic investigators in the identification of evidence. Consequently, the identified evidence is analyzed through linkages to other available parameters to develop a common inference. Observation and description enable investigators to observe all the available elements before formulating a hypothesis from the observable features. In the third stage, the hypothesis is used to make a linkage between the parameters under investigation. An experimental study is then executed to ascertain the hypothesis results for the accuracy and reliability of the attained results.
References
Au, A. (2018). Sociology and science: The making of a social scientific method. The American Sociologist , 49 (1), 98-115.
Haig, B. D. (2018). An abductive theory of scientific method. In Method matters in psychology : Springer Cham , 35-64.
Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: lessons from forensic science. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health , 16 (3), 227-238.
