Learning in practice for becoming a professional forensic expert

How to share and utilise expertise in a police forensic department through externalisation and mutualisation

The technique of fire investigation is a forensic domain in which expertise and analogies play a central role. To learn how fire investigators use these analogies to support their work, we conducted an ethnographic study in a Swiss forensic police department. To propose a suitable knowledge-management strategy, we also evaluated the knowledge conservation and sharing within the department. Our results highlighted that actionable knowledge is registered mainly in the investigators' memories of a few, very experienced, individuals. Without experience with fire-incident investigations, an agent generally requires help from a more experienced colleague, who will then use his memory to find a similar case, which can contribute to the solution of the ongoing one. The research also established that knowledge is exchanged orally during on-site investigations and that knowledge receivers are generally those who are present on the scene. Using these findings, we suggest building a case library to support the externalisation and sharing of knowledge.

What does impartiality mean in medico-legal psychiatry? An international survey

Medico-legal psychiatry is the field of forensic psychiatry that consists of reporting to criminal, civil and administrative authorities and testifying in courts of law. As a forensic science, medico-legal psychiatry is based on the principle of impartiality. However, the notion of impartiality is not clearly defined and can be understood in many different ways. The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning that expert psychiatrists attribute to this notion. Members of the forensic sections of the World Psychiatric Association, the European Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law were surveyed by e-mail using a vignette and a questionnaire. One hundred and thirty-one responses were received. When commenting on the case presented in the vignette, a large majority of respondents considered that the personal moral convictions of the doctor were the main factor likely to cast doubt on the impartiality of the expert, followed by past personal experience and the fact that the expert was the treating doctor of the examinee. In the answers to the questionnaire, 54% of participants considered that the question of impartiality was similar in both the inquisitorial and adversarial systems. Impartiality was considered by most participants as both an ethical and a legal concept. The main factors considered as likely to affect the impartiality of an expert were past personal experience, personal beliefs and perceptions, and the fact that the expert was the treating doctor of the examinee. Training in forensic psychiatry and past professional experience were considered to be the most important factors that could enhance the impartiality of an expert. When asked about their own definition, 70% of respondents defined impartiality as a choice specific to the expert, and 27% of participants defined impartiality as a result of external factors. The term 'objectivity' was used in 30% of responses. Results revealed a rather unified view of the issue of impartiality by medico-legal psychiatrists, irrespective of their country and practice conditions. The notions of honesty and striving for objectivity, which are emphasized in several guidelines of forensic psychiatry associations, were cited by many participants. Impartiality appears to be considered as a coherent concept in both normative and consequentialist ethics and represents a useful reference in the practice of medico-legal psychiatry.